Sitting of 22 May 1989

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

NEW WRIT
For Glasgow, Central, in the room of Robert McTaggart Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]
Motion made and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the constituency of Vauxhall in the room of Stuart Kingsley Holland Esquire, who, since his election for the said constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—[Mr. Foster.]
Mr. Bernie Grant rose——
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to object?
Mr. Grant: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, the motion stands over until the commencement of public business.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the public expenditure cost of abolishing the earnings rule.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The estimated total public expenditure cost of abolishing the earnings rule for pensioners is £205 million in 1980–90, and £375 million in 1990–91.
    Mr. Brazier: Is my hon. Friend aware that this measure will be greatly welcomed by many people of pensionable age, not least in my constituency, who seek to better themselves after the formal retirement age? Does he further agree that the welcome stimulus that it will provide to the economy by releasing many valuable skills back into the economy should, in the long run, make the measure self-financing?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. There will be greater choice for the elderly, the economy will benefit from the skills and experience supplied by pensioners continuing to work, and there will of course, be additional revenue for the Exchequer.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my hon. Friend able to say how those people affected by the change will be informed of the new arrangements?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, we plan to write next month to all those in receipt of a reduced pension and all those who have deferred their pension. There will be others, of course, earning under £75 per week of whom we are not directly aware, but I hope and expect that they will learn of the measure through the extensive publicity and editorial comment.

    Residential Homes
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the payment limits for residential homes.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We reviewed the limits last October and announced significant increases, which took effect last month.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern particularly among charitable organisations which want to offer high quality provision but are unable to do so due to inadequate funding, which they believe is not being met by the Government? The feeling that local authority provision of residential care is inadequately funded is causing anxiety and worry to many families, and there is growing suspicion that some of the private organisations which have been set up are becoming money-making bodies. Will the Minister apply his mind to those problems?
    Mr. Scott: Of course, we watch all of this carefully. It is worth reminding the House that when the Government

    661
    came to office we were spending some £10 million per year on such support; 10 years later, the figure has increased to £1 billion per year.
    About two out of three people in this type of accommodation are able to pay their fees from the support that they receive. The level of support set must take account of the interests of the taxpayer and not fuel the market. It was never designed to pay every fee that is charged in every area. I think that we achieved about the right balance in the upratings last month.
    Mr. McCrindle: I recognise that substantial sums are being expended in this area of social security, but does my hon. Friend agree that in the process of building up that substantial figure public expenditure on the provision of accommodation for elderly people has been able to be curbed quite considerably? When my hon. Friend comes to review further requests for still greater assistance, will he bear in mind that in many ways it is rather a good investment as it may mean that local authorities do not have to expend quite so much as would otherwise be necessary?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that the system of national limits that we introduced in 1985 is a much better way of combining the interests of the taxpayer and the need to keep public expenditure under some sort of proper control with meeting the needs of those who require this kind of accommodation. As my hon. Friend will know, we are considering all these matters in the light of the Griffiths report on community care and the need to make proper judgments between the need for institutional care and domiciliary support.
    Mr. Frank Field: When do the Government intend to respond to the Griffiths report?
    Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department of Health have that matter at the top of their agenda—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will know better than almost anyone in the House how complicated the subject is, and how important it is that those who have to make judgments between domiciliary care and residential care are able to do so, as far as possible, in a financially neutral climate. The Government are addressing the matter as one of great urgency and I hope to be able to make an announcement in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Soames: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about increased resources, but is he aware that there are great disparities in the cost of residential homes between the north and the south due to the difficult situation in the labour market in my constituency and elsewhere in the south-east? Does my hon. Friend agree that in this area of the public provision, as in so many others, there should be some form of regional fixing of income and allowances to assist those who find life extremely difficult?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend knows that at present only London has a special enhancement of the rates that are paid, but I am conscious that the geographical spread, in a sense, goes wider than that. That is one of the matters that we shall have to bear in mind when we come to consider the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Fearn: Has the Minister had any discussions with the National Care Homes Association or with Age Concern? I presume that he has seen the report from Age
    662
    Concern that many elderly people who have been in residential homes for some time are now being asked to quit.
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence relating to the many cases of which he speaks, I hope that he will make it available to me or to my colleagues in the Department of Health. We are constantly in touch with the providers and the time is coming when we shall need to take a fresh look at these matters in the context of the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only monitoring of care standards or staff qualifications at small homes with fewer than four residents, which do not have to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, is on initial application and that there is no statutory requirement for continuous monitoring? Will the Department support the Department of Health in its review of the remit of the Registered Homes Act to bring smaller homes under statutory monitoring?
    Mr. Scott: When these measures were first introduced there was a need to balance bureaucratic intrusion and complexity with the need to achieve proper standards. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health are concerned and they will have my full support in any action that they choose to take.
    Mrs. Beckett: If the Minister is in touch with the care providers, what response does he intend to make to the now almost universal call, particularly from charities, for an urgent review of benefit rates in this year—1989—to avert an otherwise threatened financial collapse? Does he realise that many people, particularly the most dependent elderly people, are very fearful about the difficulty that they face in meeting the gap between rising costs and static benefit rates? Is the Minister aware that in many cases their children are also pensioners and cannot help them? When do the Government intend to do something about that?
    Mr. Scott: I have no evidence whatever of any imminent collapse in provision in that area. Many people can look to other sources of income, including support from their families, and so on. It was never intended that the rates should meet the fee which is charged anywhere in the country, at whatever level it is set. If we did that, we should be making the market in that area, and it would not be sensible for us to do that. We listen very carefully to the providers, but I see no prospect of any enhancement of the rates in the current year.

    Family Support
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of Government financial support for the family in the EC; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): The United Kingdom compares very favourably with other European Community member states in the financial support made available for the family. As far as child benefit is concerned, the real value of benefits for the majority of families is considerably higher than in most of the other states. Furthermore, our family credit scheme has no parallel elsewhere in the Community.
    Mr. Nicholson: As the elections to the European Parliament will give the Government's opponents the opportunity to make the usual far-fetched allegations about our welfare benefits and contrast them with those in the EEC, will my right hon. Friend say whether other EEC countries have the same system of child benefit as ours, which is universal and tax-free? Will he also confirm that other EEC countries do not have our system of income support to low-income families, which is most welcome to such families?
    Mr. Moore: There are quite a few points in that question. Essentially my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no comparable pattern of benefit. Italy, Germany and Greece have means tests for their child benefit systems. France does not pay benefits for the first child. To take an overall pattern, of the domestic purchasing power, for a two-parent family with one child under the age of two, the United Kingdom child benefit payment is the highest in the Community. For a two-child family with both children under the age of six—the average family size in Europe—the United Kingdom ranks third in the Community. I confirm my hon. Friend's point about income support. That structure, like family credit, must be seen in relation to the £9 billion which we spend to help families with children while part of that—£4·5 billion—goes to child benefit support.
    Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the elderly members of our families—our pensioners—have the worst income in the EEC and that the situation is getting worse for pensioners throughout the country as their transitional protection is eroded? Does he accept that it was a mistake and wrong to break the link between pensions and earnings and that unless he changes that, British pensioners will become even poorer, when they are already feeling the squeeze?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady's first point was complete and utter nonsense. It was factually inaccurate and I must make that clear time and again. One of our difficulties in trying to make comparisons between our pensioners' rates and those in Europe is that our pensioners, like pensioners in only two other countries in Europe, have the benefit of a basic pension as well as the additional benefits to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security referred earlier, such as income support. The only accurate way to try to assess and judge the way in which this country tries to assist pensioners relative to the way in which other European countries treat pensioners is in regard to the percentage of gross domestic product overall——
    Ms. Short: Flannel.
    Mr. Moore: Those who shout "flannel" or "rubbish" from sedentary positions may like to be reminded of this. Would they like a system whereby those on low incomes for most of their lives—the vast majority in continental countries—receive no basic pension because pensions are earnings-related? I do not imagine that they would like such a system. The only comparison that can be made is with gross domestic product, and in that respect our pensioners rank third highest in the European league table, if there can be said to be such a thing.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Child benefits in this country are universal and tax-free, but can the same be said of other EEC countries?
    Mr. Moore: No. As I said earlier, the position varies enormously. Germany, Italy and Greece operate a means test, and much lower benefits are paid in most European Community countries by comparison with our child benefit. We pay the highest child benefit in Europe for a family with a child aged below two. As to the typical two-child family, we rank third in the Community. It is not possible to make specific comparisons, and I have tried to abjure from doing so.
    Mr. Frank Field: How many claimants in Europe have been affected by transitional protection arrangements? So that we may make a comparison between this country and our European neighbours, can the Secretary of State also say how many British claimants failed to secure increased income in 1986, 1987 and 1988?
    Mr. Moore: I commend the hon. Gentleman for trying to get in the question that his three absent hon. Friends were unable to put, but which I looked forward to answering. Those in Europe who might like to put such questions might be delighted to have the kind of income support structure that the Labour party has not sought to deny in its review, as I believe it is called.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that £1 billion of the £4·5 billion spent on child benefit goes to families with incomes in excess of £20,000? Would it not be better if more of the money going to wealthier families were targeted instead on genuinely less well-off families?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend was among those who recognised what I sought to do in this year's uprating decision, which was to add more than £70 million for the assistance of poorer families with children, thus recognising how much better off are many families with higher than average incomes. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one specific group benefiting from the £4·5 billion that we spend on child benefit.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Secretary of State, in his study of EEC data, consider the Commission's recent report that the number of families in Britain with below half the average income has almost doubled? Is not that the real reason why he is so anxious to judge poverty by the absolute standards of the Victorians? Does the right: hon. Gentleman accept that, judged by any relative standard, the rich are much richer and the poor are even further behind them?
    Mr. Moore: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to embrace the absurd statistical illusions which suggest by definition that half of a nation, whatever its wealth, is in poverty. That kind of statistical absurdity, as I have tried to persuade people—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would not like it to be drawn to the attention of the House that he recognised and supported the point that I am trying to make in an article in The Sunday Times. I do not for one moment doubt that there is a need, and I would not be expending £51 billion —the largest social security expenditure this country has ever seen—if I did not think that there was a requirement to help and assist people. I would never deny that there is need, but that is not the same as citing absurd statistical nostrums which suggest that one third to half the nation is in poverty, which is rubbish.

    Reforms (Review)
    Mr. McCrindle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what current plans he has to review any aspect of the reforms introduced on 1 April 1988.
    Mr. Moore: We have given an undertaking to monitor all aspects of the social security reforms, and that is a continuing process. We have given extra help to the least well-off families with children, for example, and we are making nearly £200 million extra available to older and disabled pensioners from October.
    Mr. McCrindle: Given that many of the people within the Government's sights in terms of targeting benefits more efficiently are benefiting as a consequence of the 1988 review, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless take account of the failure, seemingly, of targeting to reach people just above income support level who were recently described in a pamphlet as being "not rich, not poor"? As many of them did not have the opportunity to build up an occupational pension, as so many people now retiring have done, are they not a section of society to which the Government ought urgently to turn their attention?
    Mr. Moore: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that the new income support system is fairer and more generous. He also said—I thought it a fair point—that we should always remember that just above the income support line are people who, by any definition, are not well off. I know that he will be pleased about the way in which family credit tries to help poorer families with children, going some way up the income scale. He will also be delighted not only with the adjustments to transitional arrangements for housing benefit for those above income support level that we made last spring, but with the news that 1·4 million of the 2·6 million elderly and disabled pensioners who will benefit this autumn from the changes that we are introducing will be above that level.
    Mr. Madden: In his review of the social security system, will the Secretary of State ensure that the practice of giving food vouchers to people who apply for crisis loans is scrapped? A constituent of mine, the mother of three children under eight, recently lost all her money. When she applied to the local office for £20, she was given a food voucher which stipulated that she could spend the money only at a named store within a week of its issue, that she must not spend it on tobacco, alcohol or sweets, and that the loan must be repaid in 1990. That food voucher was useless for her purpose—to buy a present for her son. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of a system which represents all the worst aspects of the old poor relief system which we all thought that we had left behind years ago?
    Mr. Moore: I am extremely pleased that as a result of the Government's economic success we are able to spend vast amounts on income support and, in addition, on such things as the social fund. Some people receive vouchers of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall look into what he has said, but I am sure that he would wish to put this into perspective.
    Mr. Madden: So would my constituent.
    Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman could contain his inherent bitterness for a second, he might like to concern
    666
    himself with the million or so people who have already benefited from the social fund. They are not exactly complaining.
    Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend base his review on one criterion—the existence of a strong net below which no one can fall? Does he agree that we must not become confused by those in the media who, in recent weeks, have tried to relate such a net to equality? The purpose of the social security system has never been to introduce more equality into society. It has always been to ensure that people are properly protected.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has expressed very well points that I have lately been trying to address. We are trying to help large numbers of our fellow citizens who are clearly in need. We must keep that clear in our minds, and not be forced by distorted statistics into the pretence that the country is somehow failing, creating an illusory poverty affecting one third of the population. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask me to look constantly to see what parts of society need additional help, and I shall seek consistently to do that.
    Mr. Robin Cook: What hope does the right hon. Gentleman's review hold for the quarter of a million pensioners and other claimants receiving transitional protection, who received no increase last year or this year and who under the present rules will receive none next year? Is he aware that by definition they are among the frailest and most disabled claimants? It would be outrageous if they spent a third year on a frozen income, reduced to what by any standards—absolute or relative —is a degree of poverty that is a disgrace to any civilised society.
    Mr. Moore: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting back to the question that his hon. Friends keep trying to ask but never seem to be present to do so. I will put the matter into perspective. The hon. Gentleman seems not to be endorsing the new structural income support system that his own team's review does not seem to wish to reject.
    Of those on supplementary benefit, 35 per cent. received no payment for additional requirements of any kind. The average additional requirement payment to the sick and disabled—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the disabled—was £5·34 a week. Instead, 220,000 claimants are now receiving a disability premium of £13·20. That is a considerable improvement, which I would expect both sides of the House to welcome.
    Some 4,400 disabled people were receiving domestic assistance additions, averaging—[Interruption.] I realise that this answer will be unpalatable to the Opposition Front Bench. Those people were getting domestic assistance addition, averaging £4·87 a week. Now over 7,000 are, I am happy to say, getting the severe disability premium of £26·20 a week. That is an illustration of the change to a new and better system to help those who are most disadvantaged.

    Maternity Benefits
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what comparative assessment he has made of the United Kingdom system of maternity benefits as against those of other EC member states.
    Mr. Scott: We do of course in this area, as in many others, take note of what is happening elsewhere in the Community. We concluded that our record compares very favourably with the other European Community member states where only two countries—Denmark and Italy—provide income replacement for a longer period.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Do all other EEC countries provide maternity grants?
    Mr. Scott: In Germany, Greece and Portugal, only insured people are entitled to such benefit, whereas we provide benefit for all working pregnant women by means of one or other of the allowances or benefits.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister agree that one ought to look not only at the amount of maternity benefit that women receive but at the length of time that they are allowed maternity benefit? I am sure that the Minister will want to hear about a most interesting comparison—I look forward to his comments—of the length of time that women receive maternity benefit. If I were pregnant in West Germany, I would get benefit for 32 weeks, In Italy for 21 weeks, in France for 16 weeks, in Spain for 14 weeks and in Ireland for 14 weeks, but here women get it for six weeks. [Interruption.] Obviously male Conservative Members of Parliament do not have the child care problems that many women in this country have to face. I am sure that the Minister will accept that that is the important comparison.
    Mr. Scott: Only two countries in the European Community—Denmark and Italy—pay income replacement for longer periods than we do. There are some insured benefits, but they are not on the basis of income replacement, as ours is.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend put the record absolutely straight? Is he aware that although we are one of the most generous payers of maternity benefit, Labour party MEPs have been advertising at great expense, and quite falsely, that we pay maternity benefit only for six weeks?
    Mr. Scott: I am surprised that the Opposition should be so economical with the truth in that particular area. Although earnings-related SMP runs only for six weeks, for another 12 weeks after that it continues as a flat rate benefit.
    Ms. Richardson: I do not understand how the Minister can be so smug about the benefits that he claims are available to pregnant women. Britain is the worst provider of statutory maternity pay for pregnant working women in the EEC. The eligibility criteria that the Government have introduced have deprived over half Britain's working women of any entitlement at all. Will the Minister comment on the fact that Britian is unique in Europe in giving no maternity leave, as of right to all pregnant women in employment? Furthermore, 87 per cent. of the part-timers working less than 20 hours are women. There is no universal right to a maternity grant. Many women notice that to their detriment.
    Mr. Scott: Maternity leave is provided for women in full-time regular employment. That is the basis of the system. That is why it was introduced, and it is right that it should be on that basis. If we allowed any part-timer
    668
    —however many hours were worked—to have maternity leave, we should open the gates to all sorts of abuses of the system.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount spending by his Department has changed in real terms over the past five years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Moore: By about £2·25 billion between 1983–84 and 1988–89, a real increase of 5 per cent. We plan to increase spending by a further £3·5 billion in the present year, bringing total expenditure to over £51 billion, nearly one third of public spending.
    Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn some elements of the professional poverty lobby in this country who continue to ignore the fact that everybody is better off than they were, as is evidenced by the fact that in the 15 years to 1985 average household incomes rose by 25 per cent. in real terms? In addition, the poor and the needy are now in receipt of 31 per cent of public spending this year, as against 25 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps unwisely, I tried in a recent speech, which attracted some attention, to take a period of time which is disconnected from any particular party's period of office to illustrate what has happened during the past 40 years, during which successive Governments have tried to improve the lot of the least well-off people in society. It does no service to them, or to those of us who try to help them, to distort the truth. We shall help people who are genuinely in need much more effectively through our current massive, and record, social security spending.
    Mr. Heffer: I accept that the mass of the people are far better off than they were in the 1930s. We are not talking in terms of that type of poverty. Is it not clear that people who are at the lowest end of the income scale, who are struggling on benefits and on low wages, could have been a lot better off if the Government had not given great hand-outs in tax to their friends but had given that money to the people at the lower end of the scale?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Member genuinely cares about these issues. 1 am glad that he recognises that all are better off. His argument seems to be that those at the bottom could have been even better off as a result of different economic policies. It is extraordinary that the Opposition's argument is now about how to spend the results of Conservative economic success. It may be of interest to the hon. Member to know and consider that, 10 years ago, the top 5 per cent. paid 25 per cent. of gross income tax. Today they pay nearly 30 per cent. Their success has added to the success that allows me to spend the present record sums on those in need.

    Disabled Parents
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to improve social security benefits for children of disabled parents.
    Mr. Scott: As my hon. Friend knows we have increased real spending on the long-term sick and disabled by 90 per

    669
    cent. to £7·3 billion since 1978–79. He will also know that, when we have all six reports from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, we will be better placed to judge whether this help is well directed.
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend gives an excellent report in terms of what we have been able to achieve so far. We are talking about a particularly brave group of children and parents. Will he consider two aspects of their lives closely? First, when a child's education is continually disrupted by being called out of school to look after a sick and disabled parent, perhaps some form of additional care and respite could alleviate that.
    Secondly, when two disabled parents manage to cope in the home but have difficulty getting their able-bodied child to school, a discretionary payment can be made by the education authority, but when no payment is made, as has recently been the case with the Inner London education authority, such families receive no help.
    Mr. Scott: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is clear that, in the circumstances which he described, the Child Care Act 1980 lays a responsibility on local authority social services departments to promote the welfare of such children. Normally, when such a case is brought to the attention of the social services department, it liaises with health authorities and voluntary agencies and is able to provide a wide range of domiciliary services, including respite care, which are in the interests of the child.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that children of disabled parents whose incomes were cut in last year's social security changes also became poorer at a time of rapidly rising prices and when child benefit has been losing its value? Has this not piled handicap on handicap for these families? In advance of the review of disablement benefits, not to ignore what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said, will the Minister introduce a special allowance for families in which children do so much for their parents to enable them to stay at home?
    Mr. Scott: Apart from reiterating my opening reply, I remind the House that when we introduced income support, the income support disability premium gave £60 million extra to 270,000 people—an important enhancement of support for disabled people. I am not dismissing the problems of child carers, but I reiterate that they have to be addressed by a partnership between central Government, local authorities and local health authorities in the provision that they can make for individual cases.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the community charge rebate.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Scretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the rebate of the community charge.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We estimate that one in four of those liable for community charge in Great Britain will benefit from the effective help given by the rebate scheme to those on low incomes. In addition, the special element built into
    670
    the rates of the income-related benefits will help nearly 9 million people with the minimum contribution they have to make from their own resources.
    Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister let the Secretary of State know that I am here, and I am always here? Is he aware that last Friday we met Church leaders in Nottinghamshire? The have their feet on the ground in the community and know about the problems of people in poverty. I use the word poverty because it is there. When will the Government spend some money on telling the people about their rights to rebates for the community charge? Wake up!
    Mr. Lloyd: We always notice when the hon. Gentleman is here. I am grateful that he has had time to ask his question as it provides a further opportunity to advertise the rebate scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows there are editorial comments, leaflets, advertising and the fact that local authorities make their own arrangements for letting people know. There will be no doubt at all that all those eligible for a rebate will have had plenty of opportunity to learn that fact.

  THE ARTS

    Galleries (Openings)
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many new galleries have been opened by the main national institutions in the last five years.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Five major new galleries have been opened by national institutions during the last five years: the Tate gallery, Liverpool; the Clore gallery on the Tate's Millbank site; the Victoria and Albert's theatre museum in Covent Garden; the British Film Institute's museum of the moving image; and the Imperial War museum's new superhangar at Duxford. In addition, most of the national institutions have redesigned and refurbished areas within their existing buildings to create new gallery space.
    Miss Widdecombe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent indication of his policy of partnership in the museum world, and that coupled with the 53 per cent. increase in Government grants for repairs and maintenance, it gives the lie to any claims that the museum world is in a state of crisis?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is absolutely true that the amount of redevelopment and the opening of new galleries in the past few years has been enormous. A number of other new galleries are in progress, including the Sainsbury wing at the national gallery, further plans for new galleries at the British museum and the complete refurbishment of the Queen's house at the national maritime museum. An enormous amount is happening and, as my hon. Friend said, with the increase in the amount of money for building and maintenance, the overall resources and the improvement in the national institutions are progressing very well.
    Mr. Frank Field: As part of this refurbishment programme, what steps is the Minister taking to move those collections which are never shown by London galleries in the north, particularly Merseyside?
    Mr. Luce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have warmly welcomed the opening of the Tate gallery in Liverpool last year with the extension of the Tate to Merseyside. A vast amount of lending is now taking place. The Tate gallery, the British museum, the national gallery and the Victoria and Albert lend a large number of objects. With the extension of outstations of various national institutions around the country, there is much wider access to our collections.

    Northern Ballet
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the funding of the Northern Ballet.
    Mr. Luce: The funding of the Northern Ballet theatre is a matter for the Arts Council. The House will be pleased to note that the council has decided to continue funding for at least two more years to enable the company to stabilise its financial situation.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that that news has been received with acclaim throughout the north. Is it not true that under Christopher Gable, the artistic director, the Northern Ballet theatre has made enormous strides in standards? Is it not also true that all arts organisations require a sound and firm financial foundation upon which to base their work?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to pay tribute to Christopher Gable who has given remarkably strong leadership to the Northern Ballet theatre over the past few months. The standard of its productions is undoubtedly high and it is attracting new audiences to ballet, which is an important development. If Northern Ballet can get its own house in order, which it is well on the way to doing, it has a strong future.

    English National Opera
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has held about the future funding of English National Opera.
    Mr. Luce: The funding of individual arts organisations is a matter for the Arts Council, but I keep in touch with the chairman and director of English National Opera.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread admiration for the English National Opera, which has made enormous strides in the quality of its productions as well as in education, touring and attracting sponsorship? Is he aware that there is widespread unease that the company is unable to plan ahead because of the failure to reach an agreement with Westminster city council in particular? Will he talk to his colleagues in Government about that?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the English National Opera's standard of excellence in the arts. Its last season was remarkable and there were many new productions. There are five new productions in the coming season. It does an extremely effective job in generating new audiences for opera and I have nothing but praise for what it achieves. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that a proportion of its grant comes from Westminster city council. It is an important contribution to its overall funding. The Government
    672
    provide just under £7 million and its total resources are about £15 million. Therefore, it is an important sum and I hope that Westminster city council, in considering what support it can give, will enlist the support of other London boroughs on whose behalf at present it gives support to the English National Opera.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend take this matter seriously as the English National Opera is an important and successful British institution whose viability is jeopardised by a side effect of the reorganisation of local government finance? Will he talk with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on this matter as soon as possible?
    Mr. Luce: In the past I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on this matter and I attach great importance to it. It is right at this stage to stress that I look to Westminster city council to decide what it can contribute and then to generate support from other London boroughs to see what they can do to help English National Opera.

    Incentive Funding Scheme
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent the incentive funding scheme has achieved the return and objectives estimated when it was introduced.
    Mr. Luce: A total of £18 million of additional money is expected to benefit 48 organisations since this scheme began in 1988. This represents £3 of private sector money for every £1 invested by the taxpayer.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme has done a great deal to encourage many organisations to improve their professionalism, particularly in marketing? Has that not brought considerable benefits to many consumer and arts organisations? Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the benefits brought to Yorkshire and the north?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. One of the main purposes of the scheme is to provide an incentive to organisations to diversify their sources of funding and become even more professional in their management. Under the initial scheme we have already achieved a £3 return for every £1 invested, which is a big improvement on what was targeted—£2 for every £1 invested. That shows the enthusiasm with which some arts bodies are receiving the scheme and the effort they are making to obtain extra sources of funding from the private sector.
    I am pleased to be able to say that, of all the regions, Yorkshire comes second with 20 per cent. of all the awards.
    Mr. Butler: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what importance is given to the regions under the scheme? Do they lose out to London? Can he tell me to what extent business sponsorship has grown in total?
    Mr. Luce: Over 70 per cent. of the organisations that receive incentive funding are based outside London. I am anxious to achieve the highest standards of excellence throughout the country. That is important to the success of the arts, which should be accessible to people throughout the country.

    Museums and Galleries
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will conduct a national audit of the state of the buildings of the national museums and galleries.
    Mr. Luce: I have no plans to do so. The national museums and galleries commission their own building surveys and present their conclusions in the context of the corporate plans which they submit to my Department.
    Mr. Haynes: It is time that this Minister woke up. Is he aware that national museums and galleries are falling down? We need a national audit to put that right. I am asking this Minister to wake up, as well as Social Security Ministers.
    Mr. Luce: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but he should recharge his batteries, change direction and embrace as warmly as he can the fact that I have increased resources available to museums and galleries for building and maintenance by 53 per cent. Will he give his strong support for that?
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept the statement made by the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum that they have inherited a £50 million backlog from the Property Services Agency and that the trustees of the Tate gallery have inherited a £27 million backlog? The increase for the coming year will be only 2·1 per cent. If the Minister accepts those figures, what will he do about them? If he does not accept them, will he accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) of a national audit to establish how badly placed our national museums are?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is tending to fall for the Armageddon syndrome—everything is coming to an end in the arts world and there is a crisis, which there is not. A series of problems are being tackled. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that this year we shall spend £48 million on building and maintenance of our national institutions, and that the amount over the next four years will increase by 53 per cent. When will he acknowledge that?

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Ethnic Monitoring
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on his Office's ethnic monitoring policies.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer. It has a range of policies to ensure equality of opportunity for all staff. The ethnic origin of applicants and new entrants to the Civil Service is monitored.
    Mr. Janner: Is it correct that, as a result of monitoring exercises, the Minister has found that his Department does not employ one person from an ethnic minority in grades one to four, or grade six, and only one in grades five or seven, which is better than most Departments in which not one black person is employed in grades one or two and only one in grades three or four? Does the Minister agree that this is a deplorable reflection on past promotion and
    674
    recruitment policies? What does he propose to do about it, when the Civil Service is giving such a poor lead to the nation's employers.
    Mr. Luce: I acknowledge that the number of Asian or black people employed in senior positions in my Office is small—only 1 per cent. of those above grade seven. The number of Asian or black people employed within the service as a whole reflects the number throughout the country——
    Mr. Janner: Only in the lower grades.
    Mr. Luce: Indeed, it is only in the lower grades, but as they become more experienced their promotion prospects will increase. I am not satisfied that equality of opportunity is adequate for staff to reach senior levels. I am therefore glad to be able to tell the House that all Departments have agreed to draw up a comprehensive action programme to increase equality of opportunity for black and Asian staff, which I hope will help.
    Mr. Marlow: How does one resolve some of the queries arising out of this monitoring nonsense? Does my right hon. Friend have a sort of colour code in his Department? Perhaps, if one was going to be objective about it, my right hon. Friend could help the House by letting us know what the ethnic classification is of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who asked the question?
    Mr. Janner: White and Jewish.
    Mr. Luce: There are understood procedures, and I understand the question that my hon. Friend asked. It is important that equality of opportunity is ensured, so that there is a fair and open system and that people are recruited on merit.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many students were recruited into the Civil Service (a) direct from schools and (b) direct from universities (i) in the past year and (ii) 10 years ago; what were the costs of the recruitment exercise in each case; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: Information is not available in the form requested.
    The Civil Service Commission recruited a total of around 7,000 people in 1988 of whom over 2,500 were young graduates. Most recruitment of school leavers is carried out locally by employing departments.
    Mr. Greenway: Does a school leaver have as much opportunity to get to the top of the Civil Service as a recruited graduate? If not, will my right hon. Friend do something about the old boy network which prevents this?
    Mr. Luce: School leavers who do not have university experience have that opportunity if they have the talent. They can join the Civil Service at a particular level with two A-levels and, if they prove themselves after two years, can be transferred to the fast stream. This means that there are opportunities for people of all backgrounds and experience to work their way to the top.
    Ms. Mowlam: Are figures available on male and female recruitment to the Civil Service over the past 10 years? What steps are taken to break down the old boy network on that front as well?
    Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Lady is not aware that there is a programme of action to recruit more women into the Civil Service. The fact that there will be a great decline in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds coming on to the market in the next five years means that the competition will be intense. There already is a programme of action to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for women.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend give figures on the recruitment of students in science and engineering? Does he agree that if there has been an increase it must be good news in terms of better recognition being given to the work of our engineers and scientists?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Last year was a record year for recruitment of engineers and technology specialists, although there are still problems in other specialist areas, such as computing. Because a much more flexible pay system is evolving in the Civil Service, we can deal more effectively with problems concerning the specialist skills that we so badly need.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.
    Mr. Barnes: Is there not a need to protect and, often, to re-establish traditional Civil Service impartiality? The Government oblige civil servants to involve themselves in the production of propaganda, the worst of which are probably the poll tax leaflets. Is it not a disgrace that the Government are forcing civil servants into a position where their traditional standing begins to be threatened?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must have missed last week's debate when the rules and regulations on Government advertising were made clear. It is perfectly proper to carry out such advertising, provided that it is in no way party political. I would go much further than that and say that it is surely the duty of any Government to ensure that their citizens know their rights and responsibilities and the important implications of legislation. It is important that the community should know for its own sake the facts and details of the community charge.
    I totally refute the suggestion that the Civil Service is not impartial. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee recently stressed that in its view the Civil Service was certainly impartial.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with representatives of the Civil Service trade unions further
    676
    placements of their members in industry and commerce, outside the Civil Service? Has he had any response from the trade unions to such initiatives?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. He may be aware of the bridge programme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I launched about two months ago, in which we are drawing further attention to industry and commerce on the prospects of more secondment and more exchanges between the Civil Service and the private sector. There has been an initial response to the programme. I hope that there will be an increase in such exchanges. I have no reason to believe that the trade unions object to them.
    Dr. Marek: Did the Minister consult the trade unions before the Secretary of State for Social Security made his statement to the House recently about operational changes within his Department? What do the trade unions think about the matter.?
    Mr. Luce: My right hon. Friend made it plain in his announcement last week that he would consult the trade unions on the staff changes, as is the case with every agency that we establish. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the significance and importance of my right hon. Friend's decision, which will ensure that the vast bulk of the operations of the benefits office, of the national insurance contribution service and of the information technology service are turned into agencies with clear performance targets, so that the services to the consumer can be made plain and can be improved upon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that warmly.

    Agencies
    Mr. Key: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether any new Civil Service agencies have been established since 24 April.
    Mr. Luce: No further agencies have been established, but on 17 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that he had decided that virtually all the operational tasks of his Department should be given agency status with clear target dates for when those agencies should be launched. I expect more agencies to be set up before the summer recess.
    Mr. Key: That is good news. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what improvements he is considering in training for the management and delivery of services to the public? However, will he also consider the implications for the many staff who face a considerable period of uncertainty in the agency programme, such as those at the aircraft and armaments experimental establishment at Boscombe Down, about which no decision has yet been made on agency status?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of those developments. Part of their purpose is to ensure improved performance and better management of the service and services to the public, and I believe that those aims will be achieved. In the announcement of all the agencies, plenty of time is being given. In the case of the largest agency—the benefit service—which involves 70,000 people, the change will not be made until spring 1991. That will give plenty of time to look at the future and to plan the staff required.

Soviet Diplomats and Journalists (Expulsion)
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the expulsion by Britain of eight Soviet diplomats and three journalists and the expulsion by the Soviet Union of a similar number of British diplomats and journalists.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Soviet ambassador was asked to call at the Foreign Office on Friday 19 May. He was informed by the political director, Sir John Fretwell, that 11 present members of the Soviet community in London, and a further three who have recently departed, had been carrying out activities incompatible with their status. Mr. Zamyatin was asked to arrange for their withdrawal within 14 days. He was also informed that we were declaring persona non grata three Soviet officials who had recently left. I am arranging for the names of those concerned to be circulated in the Official Report.
Less than 36 hours later, on the evening of Saturday 20 May, our ambassador in Moscow, Sir Rodric Braithwaite, was informed by the Soviet Foreign Ministry that eight members of our embassy staff and three British journalists were required to leave the Soviet Union within two weeks. A further three former members of the embassy were declared persona non grata. In addition, a quota would be established for the personnel of British organisations and representatives in Moscow.
The decision of Her Majesty's Government was taken only after very careful consideration and on the basis of incontrovertible evidence. By contrast, the Soviet Union's almost instant mirror-image response has no possible justification. It is all the more to be deplored that the Soviet Union should have chosen, in these circumstances, to expel three British correspondents whose independence is not in question. Their work has contributed directly to the recent significant improvement in relations between our two countries, which has been welcomed by the whole House. It was primarily to give the Soviet Union an opportunity to show that this improvement extended to an area where Soviet behaviour has been at its most unregenerate that we decided not to give any initial publicity to our decision to expel members of the Soviet community.
The Soviet Union's response to that deliberate restraint on our part shows how far it still has to go to live up to the standards of behaviour that the free world regards as normal. Even so, we shall continue to work to sustain the improvement in relations that has taken place and to which we attach importance. But we shall not turn a blind eye to unacceptable activity, which threatens our national security and so the safety of our citizens.
Mr. Kaufman: The Opposition regard the expulsion of three reputable British journalists from Moscow as wrong and completely without justification. We deplore any proven cases of Soviet espionage in this country. We assert the right of Britain to take proper action to protect national security and we ask the Government the following questions.
678
Why were the expulsions of Soviet nationals from Britain handled so incompetently, with the news announced not in London by the Foreign Office but as a result of Soviet action in Moscow? Did the Foreign Secretary really delude himself that he could keep this action quiet? Were the expulsions the best way, or indeed the only way, of handling the issue? Could not the problem have best been sorted out directly during the visit of President Gorbachev to Britain last month? When did these cases come to light? Was it during the last few days or was it earlier? Did the Government take into account the danger of tit-for-tat reprisals? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman worried about the serious deterioration in British-Soviet relations that is now occurring, with Mr. Genady Gerasimov today warning of a further 170 expulsions of British citizens from the Soviet Union to bring its quota into line with our limit of 205 Soviets here?
British security must be safeguarded, but is it best safeguarded by reawakening cold war attitudes on both sides?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was tempted to welcome the support that the right hon. Gentleman offered me in the first two or three sentences of his question, but in the light of the hand-wringing querulousness with which he continued, I do not now find it possible to do so. I explained to the House why we took the action in that way, precisely for the deliberate purposes that I have described. If I had announced these matters in a different fashion, ahead of the announcement made in the Soviet Union, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have been the first to accuse me of provocative cold war attitudes. The decision to expel those people was taken only after the most careful consideration, after a long period in which the Soviet Union had been increasingly aware of our deep concern about such matters.
We are not alone in finding it necessary, sadly, to take such decisions. We are aware that a total in the past five years of 248 Soviet officials have been required to return to the Soviet Union from postings abroad, including expulsions in this country. In the past 12 months alone, a total of 24 Soviet officials have been expelled from 12 countries. We had no alternative but to take this action now, in the light of the mounting evidence of an accumulating risk to the security of the people of this country. I invite the entire House to support what we have done.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us have been impressed by the efforts of President Gorbachev to introduce more glasnost and openness in Soviet affairs, such as more openness in its conduct of foreign policy? While applauding my right hon. and learned Friend's reticence in announcing the action that was taken, I am aware that the Soviet response of expelling highly reputable journalists who had carried out their normal functions of reporting the news shows that the malign influence of the KGB is still abroad in the Soviet Union. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from those who want more co-operation with the Soviet Union that we are deeply depressed by the evidence that the KGB has not been put out to grass?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support, especially over the way in which we have handled the announcement. He knows that no one has

679
striven harder than my right hon. Friend and myself, during the six years that I have held this office, to promote an improvement in east-west relations. My right hon. Friend and I have sincerely and warmly welcomed any improvements. We shall continue to welcome all the evidence of new thinking that President Gorbachev and my opposite number, Mr. Shevardnadze, have brought to the conduct and management of Soviet foreign policy. That makes it all the more regrettable that these matters have demonstrated a continuance of certain activities and of an attitude that shows that, at least in this area, new thinking has not yet penetrated the Soviet structure. We wanted to give that a chance to happen, and we still hope that it will.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Soviet Government that both this House and this country regard the right of independent reporters to report independently as a fundamental civil liberty? Can he assure the House that there was no means other than expulsion to remove those Soviet citizens from this country? Could not that have been secured by a voluntary arrangement, which would not have created the resulting tension?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point. It is regrettable that the Soviet Union should have chosen to disregard the legitimacy of independent journalists' activity just at the conclusion of the London Information Forum, during which both east and west exchanged views to try to establish that principle.
It is not possible to take action other than expulsion in cases of such unacceptable activity. That has been plainly underlined by the unwillingness of the Soviet Union to respond to our action in the way that I had hoped.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of people in Britain will welcome his action and deplore the Opposition's wimpish attitude? Does he further agree that this unhappy episode makes it clear that there is another face to the Soviet Union, which has nowhere near been exorcised yet, and that it behoves us to keep up our guard for the foreseeable future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome my hon. Friend's support and endorse his last point. The continuance of such conduct makes it necessary for us to remain vigilant in all aspects of the Soviet Union's conduct. I wish to emphasise one point, which I am sure has the support of the whole House—that we would prefer to live in a world in which the Soviet Union, in this matter, had caught up with some of its new thinking in other matters. The world would be a far better place if the Soviet Union was willing to discontinue such unacceptable activity, which unfortunately still affects its relations with many other countries.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I agree that the expulsion of the three journalists is foolish and that their work in the Soviet Union has been of great value. What does the Foreign Secretary mean by "new thinking"? Does not spying take place by all countries? During the past few minutes one would have thought that only the Russians engaged in spying. Would it be a good idea to hold a conference not only to balance nuclear and conventional weapons but to balance the amount of spying carried out by all countries?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the three journalists, who are all experienced writers and who have provided faithful reporting, of a high quality, on the Soviet Union. That has been in the interests of both countries. I must make it clear that the diplomats concerned have, in their different areas, also made an important contribution to relations between our two countries.
The right hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate from his experience in office, supported by the figures that I have given the House, that the scale and nature of unacceptable activities undertaken by the Soviet Union are in a class of their own and have continued unabated during recent years. That is why we have had to take this action.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this action justifies the Government's cautious approach throughout the glasnost and perestroika of the past few months? Is he aware also that the term "deliberate restraint" is not in Opposition Members' vocabulary and that, by raising the matter in such a way today, they have demonstrated their total inadequacy to run the foreign affairs of this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not find it difficult to agree with my hon. and learned Friend's last point. I cannot emphasise too strongly that, in our handling of this matter, we were concerned only to take the right decisions for the security and safety of the people of this country. We were not looking for any kind of propaganda advantage. With the success that has been acclaimed on both sides of the House, we continue to remain committed to the improvement of relations betweeen East and West. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was muttering from a sedentary position, is now repudiating the tribute that he has paid on many occasions to Her Majesty's Government's success in improving relations between East and West. That is our objective. It is a matter of the utmost regret that that kind of conduct on the part of Soviet authorities should continue.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that although, unfortunately, there are several KGB people stationed in this country who could not care less about improving Anglo-Soviet relations, there is speculation that other people—certainly those on the Tory Benches and in other places—also could not care less about the undoubted improvements in relations which, as the Foreign Secretary has admitted, have occurred between the Soviet Union and this country? Is the Foreign Secretary aware also that there is added speculation that the Prime Minister herself wanted an issue prior to the NATO summit to try to demonstrate that the Soviet Union remains the enemy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question is down to the usual quality of his interrogation. As I told the House this afternoon, the action that we have taken was taken in the face of accumulating evidence that could not have been allowed to continue any longer. It has been taken with regret, because we would like to see an end to such activity on the part of the Soviet Union. We are determined to go on working in the future, as we have done in the past, for improved relations. We only hope that the Soviet Union will understand exactly what that should entail on its part.
Sir David Price: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Russian intelligence and secret services had an independent existence within the Soviet state long before the Soviet Union was ever invented—back to the days of Peter the Great? Does he recognise that, for Russian intelligence, glasnost and perestroika mean "take the foreign suckers for a ride"?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not follow my hon. Friend in the full sweep of his eloquent denunciation. However, I remind him that the whole House has welcomed what President Gorbachev is trying to achieve for the Soviet people and for the improvement of relations between that country and the rest of the world. Perestroika and glasnost are part of that. The whole House should join me in regretting the extent to which those propositions manifestly do not apply to the matters with which we are concerned today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the Foreign Secretary saying to Mr. Roxburgh, one of the journalists involved, who went into print to say that these matters are rather better handled in a number of other countries such as Germany and France? Without being offensive to the Foreign Secretary, he will forgive me for asking whether, in the light of GCHQ and Zircon, the incontrovertible evidence has been submitted to the Security Commission. For example, does Lord Griffiths of Govilon, a High Court judge and chairman of the Security Commission, agree that it is incontrovertible evidence?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter has been handled in accordance with the normal standards that apply to matters of this kind, without—
Mr. Dalyell: The normal standards are Westland.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: —without enthusiasm and with great regret. We have concluded that the action that we have taken was absolutely necessary. To remove the impression that was left by his question, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the past 12 months alone, Soviet officials have been expelled from a dozen countries covering a wide range of political backgrounds. This is the inevitable response to the character and quality of such Soviet action.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on giving the House a courageous and rather terrifying insight into Labour party security policy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I concur with that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the statements made by some of his colleagues today suggest that—contrary to all the meetings between Gorbachev and the Prime Minister and others in this country—they want the cold war flames to be fanned once again?
How many diplomats have been sent back to South Africa, apart from the three referred to earlier this year? How many have been sent back to Japan or to West Germany? If the Prime Minister is so concerned about the carryings-on in the Common Market, how many have been sent back to Common Market countries?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can always be trusted to broaden the scope of the question. For his benefit and for the benefit of the House, I repeat that our action in this case has been careful, measured, to the point, and designed to deter the continuation of unacceptable activity by and on behalf of the Soviet Union. This is action that we have been compelled to take, together with many other countries in the free world. We hope that the Soviet Union will learn its lesson, because the whole House wants to see a comprehensive, genuine and sustained improvement in relations with the Soviet Union. That will not be possible on the scale that we would wish as long as misconduct of this kind continues to take place.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question and an extension of Question Time. We must now move on to a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.
Following are the names:
List of those Soviet Officials currently in London who have been given 14 days notice to leave

A. A. Bagin, embassy driver

N. L. Kolodin, air attaché

I. N. Kudashkin, Soviet trade delegation

I. N. Kuzmin, Novosti press agency

S. V. Kuznetsov, third secretary, Soviet embassy

A. V. Makarukov, attaché, Soviet embassy

I. N. Peskov, TASS

Y. P. Sagaydak, Komsomolskaya Pravda

Y. A. Smirnov, assistant air attaché

N. G. Tuyev, third secretary, Soviet embassy

M. G. Zhiltsov, assistant naval attaché

List of those Soviet Officials who have left the United Kingdom but who have been declared persona non grata

V. I. Kozlov, former military attaché

A. G. Marshankin, former assistant military attaché

S. I. Novozhilov, formerly at the Soviet trade delegation

Brigade of Gurkhas
3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
We have been considering the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas after the United Kingdom withdraws from Hong Kong in 1997. We recognise the concerns of the Gurkhas about their future, but there are many uncertainties inherent in trying to look this far ahead. The international scene is currently in a period of change with welcome improvements in east-west relations and correspondingly better prospects for progress in conventional arms control. Domestically, as a result of demographic factors, the number of young people from whom the Army must recruit is now well below the level of recent years and will continue to be so into the 21st century. Inevitably, recruiting into the British Army will become more difficult as a result.
It is not possible therefore to be definitive at this stage about the future for the Gurkhas after 1997. Major changes in circumstances in the interim, particularly in the size of the British Army as a whole—or developments in the future manning situation—may require us to reconsider. However, on the basis of the information available at present, I have decided that, although the Hong Kong commitment will have ceased, we should plan on a future for the Gurkhas after 1997 based on a viable brigade structure. At present, we see this force being a balance of four Gurkha infantry battalions, squadrons of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, the Queen's Gurkha Signals and the Gurkha Transport Regiment, together with the necessary infrastructure. It would comprise about 4,000 personnel. I would expect the future Gurkha force to have roles that lie within the main stream of the Army's defence commitments, including, as now, a substantial Gurkha presence in the United Kingdom.
There will be a progressive restructuring towards the new force over several years. The timing of these changes will depend on both the commitments and circumstances facing the entire British Army at the time, and, in particular, on the extent to which it is possible to recruit and retain British soldiers within the Army in the face of the demographic difficulties. These difficulties may also lead us to increase the number of Gurkhas to be retained. If necessary this can be considered at a later stage. The present arrangements with the Government of Nepal, whereby Gurkhas are recruited and discharged in Nepal and remain Nepalese citizens at all times, will continue.
No change in the current deployments of Gurkhas is envisaged until withdrawal of a battalion from Hong Kong takes place, which would not be before 1992. No major decisions are needed on the future of this battalion until next year, when we shall have a clearer picture of the impact of demographic trends on army manning.
The House will wish to know that the Government of Nepal have been informed, in advance, of our plans.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that the Gurkhas have served the Crown with distinction since 1815. They have fought alongside British troops in many theatres, including two world wars and the Malayan emergency; and most recently they served in the Falklands campaign. This announcement contains the elements necessary to
684
demonstrate to the Gurkhas that we are planning for them to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army after our withdrawal from Hong Kong. As such, it will, I am sure, be welcomed by them, by this House and by the country at large.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Despite what the Secretary of State would have us believe, we view with great dismay a real cut in the number of Gurkhas serving in the British Army. There will be a cut of 50 per cent. from 8,071 personnel serving in the Gurkha brigade to 4,000. That is a substantial cut in anyone's terms.
The Secretary of State has presented us with a mess of words and he has not come up with many answers. The number of Gurkha battalions is to be reduced from five to four, and we want to know how he will account for the 4,000 personnel. Are all the Gurkha battalions to consist of three companies rather than four? If so, to what use will the remaining companies be put? Are we to understand that the engineer, signal and transport regiments are to be reduced to mere squadrons? How many personnel are to be lost from these units?
As the Secretary of State has said, from the point of view of tradition and history the Gurkhas have served us well for about 174 years. They served mainly on the Indian subcontinent during the previous century but in this century their battle honours reflect brave service in Europe, the middle east and, more recently, in the Falklands.
Their 13 Victoria crosses, which they have won since 1914, are ample testimony to the loyalty, courage and steadfastness of these great soldiers.
The enlistment of Gurkhas in the British Army has been vital to the economy of their native country of Nepal. It is stated in the admirable report of the Select Committee on Defence on the future of the Gurkha brigade, which was published earlier this year, that the value to Nepal of the British Gurkhas is about £30 million annually. As the report states, that is two and a half times the United Kingdom's overseas aid to Nepal. What proposals do the Government have to replace that? Are there to be further discussions on aid? Rather than inform the Nepalese Government, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Government will have serious discussions with the Nepalese on the imposition of a 50 per cent. cut in the income that they derive from the British Gurkhas?
What will be the future of the British military hospital in Katmandu? We know that it is to be handed over to the Nepalese in 1990, but will the Government carry out their promises of aid and support in the handover period?
The Secretary of State suggested that he was making a "nothing" statement. He seemed to suggest that he could pick things up in future. He seemed to be saying in a rather insulting way to the Nepalese, "You can have your soldiers back home now but when we want to pick them up again in future, we shall do so." I think that it is a shabby statement.
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for his tribute to the Gurkhas arid the remarkable service which they have given. I was rather surprised by his reaction to my statement and I think that the Gurkhas will be surprised as well. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Gurkhas' present role is to reinforce security in Hong Kong. We are talking about a position

685
after 1997 when, by definition, there will be no such role. The maintenance of a Brigade of Gurkhas is a real gesture of our appreciation of what the Gurkhas have done and what they can do in future. It is an enhancement of what is available to the British Army. The statement will be more widely welcomed than the hon. Gentleman seems to think.
I can confirm to the hon. Member that the companies in the battalions which will continue will probably number three instead of four. That will mean that they can match up more easily with the role of the other battalions which they will work alongside in the British Army, which will have three companies.
The squadrons will be reduced from regimental size to independent squadron size although, as I made clear in my statement, the expected figure of 4,000 can and perhaps will be increased when the effect of the demographic factors is considered. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Rhondda said about the economy of Nepal. We are very conscious of that factor because we value our relationship with the Government of Nepal on this matter. We will continue discussion with the Nepalese Government. We have already told the Nepalese Government that the hospital at Dharan—not Katmandu, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said—will be handed over to the Nepalese Government. The Nepalese have welcomed that. As that hospital deals almost entirely with Nepalese civilian patients, that move seems appropriate. We shall help the Nepalese Government to manage the transition and to pay for the handover business. We shall continue discussions with them.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the report of the Select Committee on Defence. The report was immensely helpful and very well researched. I join the hon. Member for Rhondda in thanking all the members of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee, for all their work.
Mr. Michael Mates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while his general announcement about the future of the Gurkhas is welcome, the almost total lack of any detail after such a long delay is difficult to understand? This will still leave much uncertainty and anxiety in the many places that members of the Select Committee on Defence visited during the course of our inquiry where Gurkhas are to be found.
In particular, will my right hon. Friend confirm what I inferred from his reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—that the figure of 4,000 is very much the worst case figure which he thought he should set? Even the detail of reducing from five to four battalions and reducing the companies to three per battalion does not add up if my right hon. Friend says that all the infrastructure—the infantry and supporting arms and services—are to be retained in some form. In that context, is it planned to have a Ghurkha brigade or to merge the Ghurkha troops with British brigades, which would help my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because there would be less infrastructure? How is that to work out?
If more Gurkha soldiers and their families are to be stationed in this country I can state that, from experience of the Gurkha battalion in my constituency, they will be most welcome. Over the past few years they have been
686
outstanding members of the community and they are extremely welcome wherever they go. I am sure that their brothers who follow from Hong Kong will be just as welcome in this country.
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for the work that he and the Select Committee on Defence put into this matter. I appreciate what he says about the detail, which cannot be included in the statement. However, I hope that that will not lead to any feeling of uncertainty among the Gurkhas. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the figure that I announced today of a brigade strength Gurkha regiment with four battalions and a minimum number of 4,000 men is the figure which we definitely expect to be required after 1997. As I made clear in my statement, it may be necessary in due course, if other recruitment falls, to have a rather higher figure. I can confirm that we believe that the minimum viable number is about 4,000, as I have said. We certainly envisage that the battle order of this brigade and the strength of 4,000 allows for three infantry company battalions at full strength with the independent squadrons.
With regard to the brigade structure, there will be a Brigade of Gurkhas with a brigade headquarters for administration. However, the operation of the Gurkha units will be tied in with that of the rest of the British Army according to where the particular units are serving.
With regard to the future and the uncertainty to which my hon. Friend referred, I must state that we are talking about providing in 1989 for a situation which will occur after 1997. With the best will in the world and long-term planning, that is a long time in the future. The fact that we have been able to give this element of assurance—the statement involves a rock-bottom level of assurance—should reassure all those who are concerned about the Gurkhas that we consider that their very valuable service should continue in future.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State paid tribute to the Select Committee on Defence and to its First Report on the future of the Gurkhas. Does he accept that his announcement today in reality rejects the Select Committee's conclusions? In particular, on what basis has he rejected the Select Committee's conclusion that
"The evidence of the Ministry of Defence gives us no grounds for concluding that a cut in the number of Gurkha infantry battalions is justified"?
Similarly, on what grounds did he reject the Select Committee's recommendation that
"there is good reason to suppose that the British Army will need them, in something like their present numbers, well into the 21st century"?
Do the proposals for redeployment involve consideration of a role in the British Army of the Rhine? Are the Gurkhas to be confined to the United Kingdom mainland or will they be available for service throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. However, I do not agree that the statement amounts to any rejection of the report of the Select Committee on Defence. If we had decided to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas at its present full strength of about 8,000 after 1997 when the Hong Kong commitment, which takes up so much of their strength now, had gone, that would have been an enormous enhancement to the forces available to the British Army. I hope that everyone,

687
including my colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence, will accept that that would have been a very exceptional step to take. We have given a clear signal. Our minimum viable level for the Gurkhas ties in well with the view expressed by the Select Committee.
The roles which the Gurkhas can carry out in future will be broadly similar to those of other battalions in the British Army. However, there are some roles for which the Gurkhas are perhaps not so suitable as other British battalions; in particular, for service in infantry battalions in Northern Ireland where language problems would make them less suitable. However, there are many other roles in the British Army which the Gurkhas fulfil just as well as other battalions and we hope to weld them in there.
There is nothing new with Gurkhas being stationed in the United Kingdom. We aim to continue their present terms and conditions of service as closely as we can.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the majority of the House on his firm commitment to a minimum level of 4,000? However, that figure begs a number of questions. What is the future of the long home leave system? Can we be sure that 15 to 20 per cent. of a Nepalese battalion will still be able to go on long leave, which is essential to maintain their cultural and home ties? Is the present plan likely to affect the arrangement whereby the Ghurkhas carry their own reserves? That is one of the main reasons why the Gurkhas have four companies instead of three. Does he expect that they will be tied into the Territorial Army in some way or to some other organisation?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long and deep interest in the Gurkhas, for his congratulations on the general tenor of the statement. I confirm that we shall keep the long leave system and that the battalions' future strength and obligations will allow sufficient scope for the existing leave system to be continued. The main reason for having the fourth company in Gurkha battalions is their enormously manpower-intensive role on the Hong Kong border. When that role ends, three companies—as in other British battalions—will be more appropriate. The strength of the Gurkha battalions will allow for that three-company set-up still to provide for the essential long leave system that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State should not believe that churlishness causes right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to think that his statement has some of the charactistics of a colander. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must take into account the variables that can arise between now and 1997, and that it makes sense for him to be canny. I do not blame him for that. Perhaps I can plug just one hole in the colander. The Secretary of State will recall that at the time of press speculation and comment when the Select Committee was considering the Gurkhas' future, one school of thought of questionable origin was that the Gurkhas may be suitable for one type of warfare but not for another. I refer not to Northern Ireland but to their role in high tech, modern rapid response situations. The suggestion made in the media was that perhaps the Gurkhas do not think quickly enough. Will the right hon. Gentleman put that argument to bed once and for all and counter it, here and now?
Mr. Younger: Yes, certainly. I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman by countering that suggestion completely. The Gurkhas are not only extremely good soldiers who fought extremely well in many different conditions and theatres, but are clearly very adaptable. I have no doubt that they can cope with any task that they are given.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I warmly congratulate him on making the long-term decision that he has, not just for reasons of recruitment but because—and this is the important factor—it maintains our honourable link with the Gurkhas over a great many years? Looking to the future, will my right hon. Friend give consideration not only to the Gurkhas' roles out of area but to roles that need extra support within NATO itself?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is a long-term decision in the sense that it secures a long-term future for the Gurkhas when their present major role disappears. That is the good side of the long-term decision. The less good side is that it is not possible this far in advance to make detailed pronouncements about precisely where each part of the Gurkhas will serve. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Gurkhas' future roles. They will be available for most general duties throughout the British Army —the same as other infantry battalions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State reflect that Nepal needs help here and now? Without going into the merits of the country's very unfortunate dispute with India, is it not a fact that Nepal's forests are being cut down to provide fuel because that has been denied to the country, and that it is currently in a terrible economic situation? As a token of gratitude for much service, ought not the British Government to do something here and now? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to read my Adjournment debate tomorrow night, on the problems of tropical rain forests when I will describe the ways in which Nepal can be helped, and then discuss it with his hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development?
Mr. Younger: I shall certainly read the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate with great interest and —although I am sure that this will not be necessary—I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. By making further use of the Gurkhas' excellent military skills, we indirectly make a contribution to the Nepalese economy, and we are glad to do so. However, overall responsibility for aiding the Nepalese economy is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas development, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to his attention.
Sir Bernard Braine: All those like yourself, Mr. Speaker, who served in the incomparable Indian Army in the second world war will know of the Gurkhas' legendary qualities, including their steadfastness and their courage. This country owes them a great deal of gratitude. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that one cannot separate soldiers from the society that breeds them? Nepal is basically a very poor country and has a need for economic aid. While we warmly welcome the promise made about the hospital at Dharan, it is not

689
enough. Can my right hon. Friend say whether continued economic support will be given to Nepal, not in the 1990s but from now on?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's remarks about the enormous respect and gratitude that we all have for the Gurkhas, for what they have done, are doing and will continue to do in helping the British Army in their incomparable way. We want to do all that we can to help our friends in Nepal, in any way that we can. However, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, my role as Secretary of State for Defence is limited to ensuring that the Gurkha element is well organised and properly run. I hope that my statement is reassuring about that aspect. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend's remarks also are drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on ending a period of uncertainty? Nothing is more debilitating than uncertainty. Can my right hon. Friend say more about the future of the Gurkhas, not only in the context of their connection with the United Kingdom but their role in other countries, such as Brunei? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that tributes have been paid by right hon and hon. Members in all parts of the House to the wonderful work that the Gurkhas have done and will continue to do, thank God—and I do not mean that irreverently—in helping us all to maintain a free world? It is gratifying that the whole House unites in paying great tribute to the Gurkhas for that. The truncation of the association is sad, but it is joyful that the link will be continued, albeit on not such a substantial scale as in the past.
Mr. Younger: I strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the ending of uncertainty is important, and something for which all concerned with the Gurkhas have hoped over a considerable period of time. My feeling is that my statement today will do just that. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding the House of the remarkable role that the Gurkha battalion plays in Brunei. The Sultan of Brunei has been informed of the situation, and I am grateful for the hospitality that he extends to the Gurkha battalion in Brunei. It plays a useful role there, and one that we welcome.
Mr. David Nicholson: Together with four other hon. Members and a Member of another place, I was privileged to be in Nepal in January, but under different auspices than the Defence Select Committee. We saw at first hand the significant economic and environmental problems that confront Nepal. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) they are not helped by India's present blockade. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a welcome not only in Nepal but in our constituencies—which attach importance to the Gurkhas' past service—for the care he has taken hitherto and for his close consideration of the points raised today? Is he aware also of the importance that the people of Nepal attach to the hospital at Dharan, and can he give further details about how the British Government will assist its transfer?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and take very seriously the points that he and others have made about the economy of Nepal. To allay some of their anxiety, it is worth repeating that there will be no reduction in the present strength of the Gurkhas until at least 1992, and that the economic benefits of the current set-up will continue until and even after 1997.
Although the hospital has been dealing with military personnel, the overwhelming majority of patients have been civilian, and the Nepalese Government welcome the proposal that it should become a civilian responsibility. British assistance in the running of the hospital will, however, continue for some time, and discussions are in progress about how that should be done.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having served in the army for a short time, let me join those who have paid tribute to the Gurkhas, and those who have welcomed the good news contained in the statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a lesson to be learned from the spirit of the Gurkhas? After all, the loyalty and success of a regiment depends on its local connections and origins. When considering recruitment, will the British Army think of restoring the local links—perhaps even of restoring the county regiments?
Mr. Younger: I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend has said, but—as I am sure he will understand—because the matter affects regiments other than the Gurkhas, it will need to be considered much more carefully on another occasion.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you of the exchanges in the House on Thursday, which occur in column 487 and 500 of the Official Report? I mentioned the non-availability in the Library of the answer to written question 221, in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I went to the Library at 9·45 pm that day to discover that the answer was still not available. Later that evening I learned that the Secretary of State for Scotland had held a press conference, not in Edinburgh, as I had earlier supposed —not even at Dover house in Whitehall—but, at 2·45 pm, in a ministerial conference room virtually in the Chamber.
We all understand why such things happen, but 1 put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is intolerable that Ministers should arrange for questions to be put down and for answers to be made available to journalists before the time has even come to make them available to Members of the House—and, indeed, that seven hours later, more than six hours after that answer should have been available to Members, it should still not be available to them.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on how you can help hon. Members. That strikes me as a blatant example of gross manipulation of the procedures of the House and of the media, and an insult to hon. Members. We are entitled to be told what is being said, for the benefit of our constituents. It is not dignity that makes me raise the issue, but the fact that on Thursday I was debarred from making any sensible comment, or asking any sensible question, on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in other parts of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I have had an opportunity to look into the matter, and I understand that there was an embargoed Lobby briefing on the Scottish aspect of the statement at 2·45 pm last Thursday. Subsequently the text of a written answer arrived late in the Library, and, I understand, was not available until about 6 pm.
I can only repeat what I have said many times before: I regard it as important for Members to be the first to be informed of any Government announcement.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I agree with the points that you have made, Mr. Speaker. It was clear that arrangements to brief the press at the proper time were not made in this case, and I apologise to the House for the error.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the scrutiny of European issues and legislation. There was a time when Council meetings were followed by a statement or private notice question in the House. Since Mr. Delors said that 80 per cent. of our laws would be decided in Brussels, that practice seems to have come to an end, perhaps to prove his point.
Last week the wise men of Europe and the unelected institutions decided what was best for our health and what should he written on the fag packets of the people of the United Kingdom. This may seem a piffling little issue, but many people would want to ask the Government what is Europe's competence in that regard, and whether, if it has no competence, it should be challenged. If it is not to be challenged, what precedence does it have? This is very relevant to the powers of the House in future over health matters. Let me give another small but important example——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into detail. I think that I have got the drift of his point of order, with which I have some sympathy. May I deal with it?
The matter was raised at Prime Minister's Question Time last week. I understand that the Select Committee on Procedure is looking into how we are to deal with EEC matters in future, and until we have that report it is difficult for me to say anything else.
Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the weekend an important meeting took place in S'Agara to do with financial matters, including taxation, a matter that the House takes very seriously. Various undertakings were given and various documents were signed. We do not know what those documents and undertakings were. I feel that the House should have the opportunity of having a Minister before it to make a statement or perhaps answer a private notice question on such an important matter, so that at this early stage we can examine what is being done. At a later stage it might be quite impossible for the House to uncover the ground that has already been covered.
Mr. Speaker: I am deeply concerned that the House should not be bypassed in any way, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will have an opportunity, which he may try to take, to raise the matter at greater length later this afternoon.

Vauxhall By-election
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Vauxhall in the room of Stuart Kingsley Holland, who, since his election for the said constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham. —[Mr. Foster.]
4.27 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am becoming concerned when I am cheered from the other side of the House.
I am mindful of the fact that the Spring Adjournment debate is waiting, and I do not wish to deprive my Back Bench colleagues of the chance to raise matters of great import relating to their constituencies, so I shall be as brief as I can.
The Vauxhall constituency contains Brixton and has enormous symbolic importance for black people in the United Kingdom and in the Caribbean, as it was virtually the first place to which they migrated in recent times. Up to 50 per cent. of its inhabitants are estimated to be black and of Caribbean descent, and it is a barometer of black people's progress within the United Kingdom.
The Vauxhall constituency, in the borough of Lambeth, is—regrettably—an area of severe deprivation in every sphere: in education, employment and housing. That was charted in some detail by the right hon. the Lord Scarman OBE in his report "The Brixton Disorders 10–12 April 1981", after his inquiry into those disturbances, which none of us wish to see repeated. Lord Scarman was in no doubt about the level of deprivation and frustration that fuelled them.
Mr. Jerem Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grant: I am sorry, but I must go on.
One of the key aspects of the frustration of black people is their lack of politicial representation. Lord Scarman had this to say about it:
"In addition they do not feel politically secure. Their sense of rejection is not eased by the low level of black representation in our elective political institutions. Their sense of insecurity is not relieved by the liberty our law provides to those who march and demonstrate in favour of tougher immigration controls and 'repatriation' of the blacks."
Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grant: No.
"Rightly or wrongly, young black people do not feel politically secure, any more than they feel economically or socially secure."
Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grant: No. [HON. MEMBERS:"Give way."] Since the Scarman report, black people in Vauxhall and in other parts of the country have seized the political initiative and elected a substantial number of black local councillors. They have also elected or appointed black leaders of local councils. In doing so, they have shown their determination to use the political system rather than other means to redress their disadvantage.
That has not been easy, because the present Government have taken a number of steps in order to
694
disfranchise black people. Some Lambeth councillors have been disbarred from office over rate capping. The Local Government and Housing Bill that is going through Parliament at this moment will make it even more difficult for black people to be selected as parliamentary candidates and to become councillors. The positive action programmes that have been put in hand by the local authority in Lambeth to ease the disadvantage of the black communities have been vilified by the press and the media and by some Ministers. Despite that, however, substantial progress has been made. The people of Vauxhall, particularly the black people, therefore feel that the next step should perhaps be a black Member of Parliament to represent them in this House.
It might have been expected, knowing the background to the Vauxhall constituency, that the major political parties would think it appropriate to field candidates who could reflect that deeply felt need for black representation at the highest political level. Having been to Vauxhall, I know that a substantial number of black people there having a sense of rejection and resentment at the fact that this opportunity was not seized by at least one political party.
People have asked why it is necessary to have a black Member of Parliament for Vauxhall; could not a white Member of Parliament do the job just as well? In answering that question, I have to point out that it is quite well established in the Labour party and in progressive circles—I almost said "and in other progressive circles" —that the principle that sections of society should represent themselves is paramount and that Parliament should reflect a cross-section of society, but that principle seems to have been rejected in Vauxhall. The main reason why sections of society should represent themselves is because only those who come from particularly disadvantaged sections of society—who have experienced the oppression, the frustration and the degradation that they feel—can understand precisely what is at stake with regard to policies that affect them.
To quote an example, I am unable to produce a child. Some say that that might happen in the future, but it is not possible now. Therefore, I cannot possibly know how women feel about child bearing because I am not a woman. In the Labour party, trade unionists represent trade unions. It would be silly and a nonsense if I were to try to represent young people in society. There is a clearly established principle that the people who are directly affected should represent themselves. In the two recent by-elections in Wales, the candidates had to be Welsh and Welsh-speaking. I support that principle. Local conditions should determine who is selected and positive action should be taken to ensure that people are properly represented.
It is a pity that the parties in Vauxhall did not adopt the principles that were adopted when the candidates for the Welsh by-elections were selected. The imposition of a candidate in Vauxhall is to be deplored. If President Gorbachev had imposed candidates during the recent elections in the Soviet Union, everybody would have been up in arms. In the United Kingdom, however, political parties can impose candidates without a qualm. What particularly concerns me about the imposition of this candidate is the fact that there was a particularly good field of black candidates from which to choose. They were candidates of all political persuasions. Some of the

695
candidates were to the Left; some candidates were hard Left. A clear choice could have been made among the black candidates who put themselves forward.
One reason has been given for the non-selection of some of the black candidates who were selected by the local Labour party: that they were seen to be controversial. If one is a black politician worth one's salt, one has to be controversial, because this is a racist society.
Any black person who attempts to represent black people and put forward black issues properly will be torn apart by the media. If uncontroversial black candidates put themselves forward, they will not be capable of being selected because they will be politically inexperienced and naive and they will certainly not have been involved in raising black issues in the public forum. To expect a non-controversial black candidate to be selected is therefore nonsense.
It is unacceptable, too, that the excuses given for not selecting a black candidate have been publicly expressed in personal terms. The candidates were called "simple." There were other patronising terms. The candidates who were involved in the selection process are experienced. At least one is the leader of a local authority. Another candidate is the deputy leader of a local authority. Other candidates have been councillors for 10 years or more. The calibre of the candidates who put themselves up for selection was of the best. They would have represented any political party with dignity.
The failure to select a black candidate for the Vauxhall by-election will have certain consequences. At the moment there is a lack of representation in the House. Four Members of Parliament out of 650 are black. There are about 50 women Members of Parliament; there may be even fewer. Blacks and women are virtually in the same position. About eight times as many black parliamentarians should be here, and about eight times as many women should be here, too. Given the particular issues involved in Vauxhall, at least one political party ought to have acted positively and selected a black candidate.
I fear that the consequences will be these. There will be a loss of faith in the political system and in the political parties. Black and other minority people will set up separate organisations. If political parties will not allow black people a place in Parliament, black people will find other ways in which to make their voices heard. They will organise separately in areas where they live in numbers and take votes away from those who neglect them. They will join other communities—for example the Moslems—in a broad coalition against racism.
Once again, I quote Lord Scarman's report.[Laughter] I hear some guffaws from Conservative Members. The Government might feel that they have been left out of my speech, but responsibility lies with them and other political parties. Lord Scarman said:
"There is a lack of a sufficiently well co-ordinated and directed programme for combating the problem of racial disadvantage. Unless a a clear lead is given by Government, in this area as in others, there can be no hope of an effective response. The evidence I have received suggests that the black community in Britain are still hoping for such a lead, although they are cynical about what they see as the previous lack of response from all governments of whatever persuasion. If their hopes are again dashed, there is a real danger that cynicism will turn into open hostility and rejection. This must not be allowed to happen."
Tomorrow's Opposition day debate on inner cities gives the Government an opportunity to say where they stand with the black community in Britain. It provides an
696
opportunity for the Opposition to state clearly and categorically, following the fiasco in Vauxhall, their policies with regard to black and other minority communities. Unless both sides of the House make such clear and unequivocal statements, I fear that black people in Britain will feel that, once again, they can have no truck with and no faith in this parliamentary democracy.
4.41 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): In recent months, I have had cause several times to state the conventions relating to by-elections. The House will by now be well aware that it is customary for the Chief Whip of the party which last held the seat to move the writ for the by-election, and to do so within three months of the vacancy occurring. This is what is happening today and there can be no objection to it. Stuart Holland applied for the Chiltern Hundreds on 18 May. It is in the interests of the people of Vauxhall that they be represented again in the House as soon as possible. The method of selection of the candidates by the parties involved in the by-election is not the responsibility of the House; I therefore hope the House will now support the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
4.42 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I declare an interest in this matter, since I live in the Vauxhall constituency.
I am not the only hon. Member of this place who lives in that constituency. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is in his place, and he too lives in the Vauxhall division. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) is also a constituent of the late doctor [HON. MEMBERS: "Late doctor?"] The former doctor. [HON. MEMBERS: " Former?"] The former Member of this place. Not only Conservative Members were constituents of our late colleague; the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), those two heroines of the Left, also live in the Vauxhall division.
The arguments as to whether you, Mr. Speaker, should issue your writ for this by-election are finely balanced, ft is arguable that the people of Vauxhall need much longer to recover from the shock of the departure of their Member of Parliament.
I have been studying, as you will have been studying, Mr. Speaker, the achievements of our former colleague. He was the author of "The Socialist Challenge." He was also the author of a remarkable work, which some of my hon. Friends have committed to memory, called "The State as Entrepreneur". This breathtaking contradiction in terms was no mystery to our late colleague, because he was a frequent visitor to many overseas lands. I find that he made a journey to Moscow when the House was sitting in October 1987, a further journey to Moscow when the House was sitting in February last year, and another journey to Moscow in November of last year, again when the House was sitting. At least there was one advantage for our late colleague's constituents; we were not troubled frequently by visits from him in the constituency—he was too busy making these journeys.
It will be a source of satisfaction to you, Mr. Speaker, that our former colleague has taken up an appointment which is funded by the European Economic Community. We understand that he has taken up an appointment at the

697
university of Florence on a salary designated in European currency units, which is not a currency beloved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The equivalent would be £40,000 a year, and it attracts European rates of taxation.
Our former colleague is to be head of the economic and industrial development unit at the university, and no teaching commitments are involved. That will be a matter of some relief to those at the university. In addition to his duties at Florence university, we are told he is a part-time speech writer for Mr. Delors, which gives added justification to some of the criticisms made of Mr. Delors by Her Majesty's Ministers. We are also told that he is a part-time speech writer to the present leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) spoke about the selection procedures of his party. I have already explained to the House that in November of last year our former colleague attended a conference in Moscow. A fortnight after he left the capital of the Soviet Union a new text was issued, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, entitled, "Soviet Constitutional Reform", which was issued on 7 December last year and is relevant to the procedures of the Labour party. I shall read the opening sentences of this massive work:
"Elections of people's deputies…shall take place in single-seat constituencies on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot."
There are precisely the same arrangements for general elections in the Soviet Union as we have here, but here are the changes made in the Soviet Union in December of last year:
"A meeting"—
that is, a meeting to select a candidate—
"shall be quorate"—
that is a rather strange translation, meaning that there shall be a quorum—
"if it is attended by at least 500 voters living in the territory of the constituency."
Ms. Clare Short: Is it important?
Mr. Gow: That point was raised not by me but by the hon. Member for Tottenham.
The new rules laid down in Russia continue:
"A candidate shall be considered nominated if more than one-half of the participants at the meeting or a majority of the total membership of the relevant body of a social organisation vote for him."
There follow the key words:
"The participants in the constituency election meeting shall be delegated by the work collectives"—
words loved by the Left.
"At least one-half of the participants of the meeting must be voters from that constituency."
That is the key passage.
In Vauxhall, the local comrades wanted to choose their own candidate. They chose a candidate who was black, who was a women and who was a unilaterialist. That choice was overthrown by the central hierarchy of the Labour party. Such an overthrow of local decision making would never have happened in the Conservative party—[Interruption.] On the contrary, in the Conservative party, each local association is autonomous, and it is a tribute to the judgment of those associations that we have such excellent Members. So we do not have the same problem as exists in the Labour party.
698
I was rather saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham. He seemed to be telling the house that there should be in this place in proportion to the total population an equivalent number of Jews, Roman Catholics, Asians or Africans. I disagree fundamentally with that proposition. It is perfectly possible for a Roman Catholic Member of Parliament to represent Protestants and atheists. It is perfectly possible for a European Member of Parliament to represent those who are Asian or African and it is perfectly possible for a Jewish Member of Parliament to represent adequately, honestly and honourably those who do not belong to the Jewish faith.
Mr. John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gow: I have almost finished my speech.
The sense of shock about the departure of our late colleague is real among the electorate. It might be wise if we were to postpone for a short time the by-election, not least so that further consideration can be given to the excellent points raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham.
4.52 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of speaking and I shall speak for only three or four minutes. We had better get one thing right. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has misled the House on a very important point by saying that the constituency party in Vauxhall had already selected a candidate. That is not true. I do not agree with the decision of my national executive in imposing the candidate, but it is not true that that constituency party had already appointed or selected a candidate. The argument is whether or not the constituency party was allowed to choose one of the candidates who had been nominated or were likely to be nominated. However, I want to put it on record that it is not true that the constituency party had already decided on the candidate. It has not yet reached that stage.
I do not agree with my executive, but the rules are being applied. I did not agree with those rules when they were introduced. The Labour party now lays it down that the national executive can decide the candidate in a by-election. I do not agree with that. I did not agree with it at the time, and I do not agree with it now, but the Labour party has not gone outside the rules, whether or not we agree with the rules.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne always makes amusing speeches in the House.
Ms. Short: No, he does not.
Mr. Heffer: I have always thought that all his speeches are very funny. They are some of the funniest speeches I have ever heard. That does not mean that they have a great deal of content, but they are very funny. I thought that he made quite an interesting speech.
Finally, I appeal to my hon. Friends to consider the local position. In the last analysis, it is vital that the candidate should be decided by members of a local party. Looking back at the history of the Labour party in my city of Liverpool, I do not think that we ever put up a Roman Catholic in a Protestant ward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it was felt that that might not be politically wise. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will listen for a moment, after a number of years that was changed by the

699
rank and file in the constituencies, who decided to put up a candidate whether that candidate was Protestant or Roman Catholic, and that has been the position for a long time. The people in Vauxhall should decide the issue, and candidates should not be imposed from outside.
4.57 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: Just briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred to the late candidate. If by late he means that he missed the bus, my hon. Friend is wrong. He was early, he got on the gravy train and he has no problems at all. He is an absconding candidate. It is only a shame that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here with his encylopaedic knowledge of the perks, the privileges, the financial sustenance that goes with membership of these various European bodies, because I am sure that he would point out to the House the benefits that the previous Member for Vauxhall is taking for himself by turning his back on his constituents and absconding to Europe.
An important point of principle has been touched upon. The candidate that we now apparently have, if the by-election goes ahead as is currently scheduled, has been imposed on the constituency by the party leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has said, under powers which have been surrendered by the Supreme Soviet itself. I ask whether it is a matter of parliamentary privilege that these bullying tactics should be applied to one small constituency in London in such a graphic and heavy-handed way.
Finally, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) classifying people by their colour and the rest of it, but I have some sympathy with his speech. This is a wonderful democracy that we live in. If the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes that the largest grouping, the largest level of support in the constituency of Vauxhall, would come from black people who also happen to be Socialist—and that is their choice—I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the sensible thing to do, the proper thing to do and the democratic thing to do would be to have such a candidate who could secure the maximum of that support. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, on mature consideration, if he feels that that is what the people of Vauxhall want, it would be quite wrong if there were not a black Socialist candidate standing in that constituency.
4.59 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I should like to underline one or two of the points that have been made. It is clear from all the speeches that, whatever happens in Vauxhall, the electorate will not be presented with a Labour candidate selected by the Vauxhall constituency. On that, I have every sympathy with the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). The lists produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) of his fellow constituents in Vauxhall did not include the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I am not sure why the Leader of the Opposition should have a say in choosing the candidate.
I can underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne about how sadly the former hon. Member for Vauxhall is missed by his constituents. He has been missed for some time. I represent the constituency bordering Vauxhall and, time and again, my mail includes letters from his constituents. Time and again people, both black and white, come to my surgery asking me to take up matters affecting the Vauxhall constituency. Why is that? Have they been unable to find a Clapham bus that goes to Florence?
Mr. Gow: Or Moscow.
Mr. Bowis: Indeed, but there may be quicker ways of getting to Moscow than on the Clapham bus.
There is a further point that we should consider before allowing the writ to proceed. That is whether an enormous amount of public money and the time of public servants might be wasted if the by-election went ahead with the imposed Labour candidate. Let us suppose that, despite the efforts of the multifarious elements in the Labour party, the candidate were to win, is there any precedent for such a candidate being deselected within a week?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Vauxhall in the room of Mr. Stuart Kingsley Holland who, since his election for the said constituency, bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.

Spring Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 26th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6th June.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
5.2 pm
Mr. John Biffen: I have no wish to contest the motion before the House. However, there could be a case for returning on 6 November since there would be enormous advantages in that. The Government would not have to face the grevious disability of the House sitting during July, which is when most crises arise and most misjudgments are made. We would all have a good chance of escaping to our constituencies and, in the process, we would lose an entire Session of Parliament. I suspect that that is the only way in which the House can slow down the relentless load of legislation which runs to the detriment of good government in this country.
However, I want to use this occasion for the more modest and traditional purpose of raising a constituency matter—the Health Service in north Shropshire. I make this point in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House because the topic of the two proposed hospital closures—the Oswestry and district hospital and the Newport cottage hospital—is one of ambiguity. On Oswestry and district hospital there is a question of judicial challenge, and the closure of the cottage hospital has not yet been confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He has said that he will meet a delegation before reaching a judgment. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should direct my remarks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I respectfully request an answer in a letter after due reflection. I also ask that the matter is not referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, for the reasons I have given.
Both hospitals have a great record of service to their local community. Both, by general judgment in Shropshire, perform their task remarkably well and they are served by the inspired work of all the medical staff. It is a classic example of where the judgment of the community is outraged by what is proposed. I have no doubt that part of the difficulty comes from the central underfunding of the Health Service. That is probably the major cause of the proposed closures. There is no doubt that there is a related factor—the judgment of Birmingham regional health authority.
I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a new and developing fact. With the publication of the White Paper, "Working for Patients" we now have the idea of self-governing hospitals. I accept that one cannot draw a neat analogy with the education service, but the development of Whitehall-funded schools is not unlike the proposals for self-governing hospitals.
I wish to see—I believe that it is broad Government policy—a range of self-governing hospitals from the great teaching hospitals to the modest-sized cottage hospitals and all that fall within that spectrum. The hospitals currently under threat because of decisions within the regions should not be snuffed out before having a chance to make their case for self-governing status. It is a modest request but it is highly practical. It was inspired by the fact that so many of the schools that have been granted special Whitehall funding status were confronted by closure
702
proposals. This modest request and the emollient answer it seeks would be well received by me and by a range of political opinion in rural Shropshire.
Currently, there is a spasm of interest in the European Community, with the prospect of the elections on 15 June. Many can convulse themselves into believing that there will be a relationship between the fevered discussions at Westminster and Fleet street and the pattern of voting. Such a consideration leads them to believe that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would bestow his effusive charms as wholeheartedly in support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as she so uncritically supported him when he was Prime Minister, it would be a powerful weapon for Tory fortunes. In my judgment, anything we can do to repair our fortunes and give us the initiative in the health debate would do infinitely more than that—even though, as far as I can judge, that does not have the slightest relevance to the Delors package or anything else.
I make this plea in the broadest and most general political sense. If we are to give a good start to the prospect of self-governing hospitals—it is the topic in the White Paper most likely to confer upon us some sense of initiative —there could be nothing better than that prosepct being held out for the two hospitals in my constituency to which I have referred.
5.8 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I believe that the House should not adjourn until hon. Members have discussed the growing scandal of the treatment of nuclear test veterans.
It is 40 years since 26,000 British service men participated in British nuclear tests, 14,000 of whom witnessed tests at Monte Bello islands off north-west Australia, Maralinga and Emu in south Australia and Christmas and Malden islands in the Pacific. The Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, of which I am the patron, has been fighting for compensation for years, but so far without success.
I want to direct my remarks to the Prime Minister, although I am glad that the Leader of the House is listening. I have given up hope with the Ministry of Defence, given the deplorable attitude that it has displayed over the years. The Prime Minister claims to have a high regard for service personnel and ex-service men. I do not doubt that for a moment, but she should take a hard look at the way in which the Ministry of Defence is behaving compared with its equivalent in the United States.
In view of the Prime Minister's close friendship with ex-President Reagan, she should compare his utterances about American nuclear test veterans with her own. When signing an Act that provided compensation to American nuclear test veterans one year and two days ago, President Reagan said:
"The Act gives due recognition to the unusual service rendered by Americans who participated in military activities involving exposure to radiation generated by the detonation of atomic explosives. The nation is grateful for their special service, and enactments of (the law) make clear the nation's concern for their continued welfare."
In stark and harsh contrast, the Prime Minister said to me:
"The cause and effect that he says has been proved has not been proved, and therefore compensation is not appropriate." —[Official Report, 9 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 723.]
Hon. Members must ask which words and which actions show regard for ex-service personnel. When I

703
asked the Ministry of Defence on 16 may what advice it had about the genetic effects of radiation exposure, it said that although there was some evidence that radiation caused genetic defects in animals, there was no "conclusive" evidence of any genetic damage that had been passed on to children of nuclear test veterans. That is how the mind of the Ministry of Defence works. It denies compensation because there is no "conclusive" evidence, but that is rarely, if ever, available. The intelligent and reasonable approach must be to decide on the balance of probabilities. That method has been adopted by the United States but not by Britain, to the shame of Britain and the Government.
The Act signed by President Reagan compensated atomic veterans who were suffering, or who had died, from leukaemia or thyroid cancer, regardless of exposure level. It automatically compensated for cancers of the small intestine, stomach, liver, bile ducts, gall bladder and pancreas, together with lymphomas and multiple myleoma where more than one rem of exposure was established. No cut-off period for the appearance of cancer was established, although all claims must be filed by the end of 1991.
Naturally, the House is the forum for British parliamentarians, but for a few moments I wish to place on record some of the views of United States senators. In a debate on American nuclear test veterans, Senator Daschle of South Dakota said:
"The scientific evidence strongly suggests a link between the exposure and the diseases listed in HR1811. Some say that we lack definitive proof. How long will we wait for that proof? Will we wait until all these veterans are dead? Are we so afraid of making a mistake in favour of the veterans—of extending benefits when they are not deserved—that we are willing to risk making the opposite mistake of denying benefits to deserving veterans?"
Those important questions should be pondered by the Prime Minister.
Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia made an acerbic comment that could be interpreted as an indictment of the Ministry of Defence. He said:
"I really think it is somewhat incredulous that we are even debating compensation to atomic veterans, people who could not be more deserving … for 40 years ad nauseam we have studied this problem, spent millions of dollars, US taxpayers' dollars, to do studies, and none for the atomic veterans. I think that is wrong. I think it is time to bring an end to the research and to the injustice and to respond with recognition and compassion to what these people went through in the line of duty at the orders of the US Government in the service that they were constitutionally sworn to obey. We know enough to act."
Those senators were supporting a Bill proposed by Senator Cranston of California, which provided for the payment of compensation for 13 cancers, compared with the payment for none by the Ministry of Defence. Senator Cranston said:
"I believe that this measure is … both a compassionate and fiscally responsible response to the serious and continuing needs and concerns of the radiation-exposed veterans and their families. For them it is simple justice. For us, it is a fulfilment of our responsibilities to veterans injured and injured wrongly through service to our country."
Parliament is as proud of its armed forces as the United States Senate is of its service men and women. The difference is that the United States has taken positive, reasonable and compassionate action on behalf of their nuclear test veterans; we have not. It is paying
704
compensation; we are not. I hope that the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence and hon. Members will take note and act accordingly.
5.18 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should like to raise three issues with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before the House rises for the spring Adjournment.
I make no apology for again raising the issue of drug misuse. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have had an Adjournment debate and have asked several questions about this subject. I am sure that he is aware that what causes me most concern is why money confiscated from drug barons cannot be used by the police in the fight against drugs. I cannot understand why a system that works extremely well in the United States cannot be used in Britain. I remind my right hon. Friend that within the past two months at least £4,300,000 has been taken from the profits of convicted drug offenders. Instead of that money being given to fight the battle against drugs, it goes straight into the Treasury.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the leader column in the Daily Mail on Saturday 20 May:
"Two years ago the Metropolitan Police were offered a £16 million reward by the Americans for their help in smashing an international drug ring. They were unable to accept it because of the condition that the money was used in the fight against crime. That was forbidden under the rules of the Home Office, which feared that such an arrangement would result in some forces benefiting more than others.
Yet it seems right that the police should reap some advantage from their successes. A House of Commons Select Committee has now come up with a suggestion. Let the cash go to Bramshill police college, Hampshire, and then the whole force will gain. A model answer to a knotty problem—and with a bit of Thatcherite incentive thrown in."
It seems that the Home Affairs Select Committee—the Select Committee to which the leader referred—and both sides of the House greet the idea with approval. Only the Home Office seems to be out of step. I hope that, before the House rises for the recess, my right hon. Friend will give me the good news that the money will be put to good use in battling against the drug barons in the war against drugs.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the leader in today's Daily Mail—I am sorry to quote the Daily Mail twice, but it just shows how well-read I am. The leader states:
"This morning we publish an impassioned and authoritative plea for the British Government to back an international ban on the ivory trade. It comes from Richard Leakey, the renowned anthropoligist who has recently been appointed to head Kenya's Wildlife and Conservation Management Department.
At least four African countries, Kenya included, demand that the elephant be listed as one of this globe's most endangered species and hence eligible for complete protection from commercial exploitation. The United States has also joined the campaign. But not Britain. Not yet.
Our Government, the Commons was told at the end of last week, is still thinking about it.
The elephant poachers are not pondering. They are continuing to kill elephants at the rate of 300 a day.
We urge the Prime Minister to procrastinate no longer. Here is an opportunity for her to lead the European Community on an issue of anguished concern to millions of its people."
This matter was raised in business questions on Thursday by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr.

705
Banks). I was not altogether happy with the reply by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Daily Mail leader said:
"The United States has also joined the campaign. But not Britain. Not yet."
Why not? I hope that my right hon. Friend can answer that point before the House rises.
A dog registration scheme is needed as well. There are 6·8 million dogs in Britain and we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers. I have to say that the more I see of some people, the more I love my dogs. We are told that in 1986 more than 240,000 dogs were officially registered as strays by police in England and Wales. Only about 25 per cent. were claimed back by their owners.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I do not know whether there is a great difference between Ulster dogs and English dogs. The Government have introduced a registration scheme for Northern Ireland dogs—Protestant as well as Roman Catholic dogs—but seem to think that a registration scheme in England is not necessary. That shows their lack of knowledge. I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: My hon. Friend has taken the end of my speech from me. I was going to raise that point. At least 90,000 dogs were destroyed because homes could not be found for them. The total number of dogs, including registered strays, destroyed each year is more than 350,000—about 1,000 healthy dogs a day.
Despite a great campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, there are still far too many people who take on a dog without thinking things through. No doubt, at Christmas they think that it is nice to have a cuddly little pet that the children can play with, but after a while they get sick of it—perhaps it does a bit of damage—perhaps it grows up, and then it is just thrown out.
Dog abuse has increased to record levels. None of this fits our image as a nation of animal lovers. The RSPCA's figures for 1987 show that there were more than 1,800 convictions for neglect, starvation and permanent chaining. I have never been able to understand people who are cruel to either animals or small children—that is past my comprehension. Unfortunately, it happens, and I am sickened when I read some of those cases in our newspapers.
Part of our problem is the difficulty of identifying a dog's owner. The requirement is that a dog should have a name tag, but people ignore that. The chances are that a dog that is roaming has no collar and therefore no tag. Often caring owners put tags on their dogs and sometimes the tags get lost. If all dogs were registered and an element of that registration required that the dog was identifiable by a permanent tag, tattoo, electronic implant or other suitable method, owners could be identified. Any caring dog owner who has lost his dog knows the agony that is suffered. A few years ago, our labrador strayed and the agony that was felt in our house all the time that it was lost and the relief the next day when we got a telephone call to say that it was safe can be appreciated only by someone who cares about dogs.
I cannot understand why the Government are so loth to act on this important issue. A recent opinion poll showed that amazingly 82 per cent. of the public were in favour of
706
taking action. I do not think that many people would support a return to the old dog licence—it cost more to administer than was gained in receipts—but when it was abolished the Government put nothing better in its place. We need a scheme to fund the dog warden service and deter the unthinking, uncaring dog owner.
Registration would assist in identifying the dog and its owner, and indentification is essential if the law is to be enforced and stray dogs returned to their owners. As I said earlier, if the United States can use drug money to fight the drug menace, why cannot we? If in France tattooing is used to identify dogs, in Ireland—I am talking not about Ulster, but about the Republic—silicon implants are used and in the United States technology is widely used, why cannot we do the same?
Mr. John Carlisle: Many of us have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's advocacy of the registration scheme. Will he explain whether he is anxious that such a scheme should be administered by the Government—that is what he seems to be telling the House—or by local authorities? Is there not a dichotomy? Most of the letters that we have received plead for the Government to act. Why should not local authorities take responsibility, as some are doing, by using dog wardens?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I have very caring hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) have prejudged my comments. I was coming to exactly that point.
An Environment Minister recently saw members of the RSPCA who gathered from the Minister that the Department of the Environment thought that this issue had nothing to do with the Department and was a matter for local authorities.
Mr. Kilfedder: Passing the buck.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree; it is a classic example of passing the buck. The Department seems to believe that local authorities have the power to introduce byelaws. Local authorities are anxious to do what they can—about 200 of them already employ dog wardens—but they find it hard to enforce byelaws without a link between dog and owner. The registration scheme would provide that link.
If this proposal were accepted, it would not necessitate an increase in public expenditure. Implementation of section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988 is all that is required. I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of early-day motion 348, which is supported by all parties and has been signed by about 250 Members. It shows the strength of feeling in the House on this issue.
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties could testify that their constituency postbags also show that there is a great deal of public support for this scheme. I hope, therefore, that before the House rises for the spring recess, we shall have a statement on when the Government will ensure that confiscated drug assets are used in the fight against drugs, that we shall know what the Government's response will be to backing an international ban on the ivory trade and that we shall know why the Government are refusing to be more positive in ensuring a dog registration scheme.

707
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down said earlier, a similar scheme operates in Northern Ireland, where it seems to work well. The director of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says:
"Not only are dogs looked after better but fewer are suffering from irresponsible and uncaring dog owners."
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies, he will be able to explain why the Government are being so intransigent over those three issues.
5.30 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I want to raise the issue of ticket touting, which has become a disturbing and disfiguring feature of the music and entertainment industry in the west end of London and now, unhappily, of major sporting events throughout the United Kingdom. The powers of the police in this matter are extremely limited. The police are entitled to arrest a ticket tout for obstruction but, by and large, the tariff of fine imposed by magistrates is about £50 and in the case of a first offender, it may be rather less. Such a fine operates as little disincentive to a ticket tout who may stand to make many hundreds of pounds in an afternoon's work. Ticket touts deface the streets surrounding many theatres and opera houses, and members of the public are frequently deceived as to the true value of the tickets they have purchased.
Tourists are a particular target, and the reputation of London's west end theatre suffers as a consequence. In The Times on 11 February 1989, Patrick O'Hanlon reported on an investigation carried out at the instance of Westminster city council. It said:
"Victims were most frequently from the United States, Canada and Europe. A couple from Canada paid £80 each to the concierge at their hotel for two tickets for The Phantom of the Opera. The tickets had a face value of £21. The largest example of overcharging uncovered was £130 paid for each of two tickets with a face value of £19 for Les Misérables, a mark-up of approximately 600 per cent'.
The survey confirmed that foreign visitors were the most likely to be overcharged and the report said:
"This has important implications for tourism. Why should tourists pay more for the same product?"
The issue of ticket touts is even more pressing in relation to sport. Wimbledon will soon be upon us and, once again, one of the world's greatest sporting events will be disfigured by ticket touting. People who attended the Calcutta cup match at Twickenham this year will know that to reach their seats in the stadium, it was at times necessary almost to push ticket touts aside bodily. In spite of the best efforts of the Rugby Football Union, it appears that tickets allocated to a school somehow found their way into the hands of others with rather more commercial instincts.
It is in the context of football that the issue of ticket touting requires the most urgent consideration by the House. Witnesses at Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry last week made it plain that the existence of ticket touts and the opportunity to buy tickets at the ground encourage supporters who do not have tickets to attend some football matches. That makes it clear that the activities of ticket touts now have a direct influence on the safety of spectators at major football matches.
Most hon. Members regard ticket touting as morally reprehensible. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), in a reply to my question about 10 days ago,
708
described the practice as "obnoxious". It is obnoxious that, on the day that Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster opened, ticket touts were selling £30 tickets for the cup final—which was a remarkable display of skill and ability on Saturday—at £250 each. If ever there was a clear example of a willingness by people with no love for or interest in that occasion to exploit the special nature of a sporting occasion, that is it.
There is a brazenness about ticket touts which passes most understanding. One ticket tout told a reporter from the Daily Express, in an article that appeared in the northern edition on Monday 15 May 1989, that he was rather disturbed by the fact that people were exploiting the cup final between Everton and Liverpool. However, he then said:
"Anyway, I can always pull it back a bit by putting even more on the price of Wimbledon tickets."
There is brazenness and an inability to understand how offensive such acts are.
Even some hon. Members claim that ticket touting is merely an exercise in market forces. If that is so, that exercise should be repugnant and obnoxious to anyone with any sensibility. It is now clear that ticket touting may be an important adverse factor in the safety of spectators at football matches. In the evidence heard in the past week by Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry, the link has been clearly proved. As a matter of extreme urgency, we should have a statement from the Government on that before we go off on holiday.
5.36 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), because we share a certain affinity and love for sport. I hope that he will remain in his place to hear my few remarks which are on the same subject, although from a different angle. In this wide-ranging debate, I want to talk about a subject of which I may have inadvertently given my right hon. Friend notice in business questions last Thursday—the basis of the Government's attitude to international sport and, in particular, the Government's attitude to sporting relations with South Africa.
As my right hon. Friend will remember, I was somewhat disturbed to learn last Thursday that the three Ministers responsible for sport in England, Wales and Scotland had sent a strongly worded statement to the secretaries of the Rugby Football Union, the Scottish Rugby Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, saying that they should pass on any invitations that might be received from the South African Rugby Board for the forthcoming centenary celebrations on the basis that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport said, should British players accept those invitations, it would have an effect on the future of the Commonwealth games and British competition in sport throughout the world.
It was a sad day when Ministers of the Crown began to take the attitude that players who exercise complete freedom of choice—in this case, they are amateurs who are under no contract of employment and do not have binding business commitments to any employer, as professional sportsmen do—should be not only discouraged, but almost banned from accepting such invitations, although they are entitled to accept them. Many Conservative Members question the Government's wisdom. The Government advocate, rightly, that we should continue

709
our economic ties with South Africa, yet they ban those who want to go to that country to play sport from doing so. Many of us find that argument difficult to understand.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to our common interest in sporting matters. However, our views are diametrically opposed on the topic he is raising today. Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that it is legitimate for the Minister for Sport and for the Secretary of State for Scotland to draw to the attention of the Rugby Unions the consequence for other sportsmen and, in particular, those who have aspirations to compete in the Commonwealth Games, if the invitations to which he has referred are taken up by individual rugby players?
Mr. Carlisle: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about his connection with South Africa. Indeed, he is a man of great sporting prowess himself. The objection that I was making to the move of my hon. Friend was on the basis—as reported by The Daily Telegraph on Thursday —that it
"would strongly discourage taking action that would facilitate sporting contact with South Africa".
Under the Gleneagles agreement, a declaration on sport that was not signed by this Administration or by any previous Conservative Administration, the Government have a commitment without force of law to point out to those sporting authorities the possible effects of such action. However, it is not the business of any Minister of the Crown to try to put any pressure on the players or the sporting bodies of what is still a legitimate occupation. If it were illegal to play sport against South Africa—or to smoke—it would be a different story.
Therefore, in view of his party's history and his own participation in sporting events, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East believes that the time has come for Governments to interfere in the selection of sportsmen and sportswomen, whatever country they are playing against. This whole question has arisen at a particularly interesting time——
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose——
Mr. Carlisle: I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman again now, although perhaps I shall later if he still wishes to intervene.
This whole question has arisen at a particularly interesting time, given that, only 10 days ago, on the Saturday before last, when the England rugby team played against Romania, a country that has been castigated with equal vehemence by members of the royal family, the Prime Minister and hon. Members of all parties, not one voice of protest was heard, either from within the Chamber or from outside. Nothing was heard from those anti-sporting bodies that set themselves up to object to sport with South Africa.
Mr. Campbell rose——
Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman later, although I must get on. He must accept that many people find it extremely strange that we can —and I believe that we should—play rugby against a country from behind the Iron Curtain of which there has been such recent vilification in the House, with Oppostion
710
Members using the phrase "that vile regime", but that not one word of protest against that sporting link was raised either by the hon. Gentleman's party, the Labour party or the Government and the party to which I belong.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he try to distinguish in his own mind, for the benefit of the House, between the actions of the Minister for Sport last week when he wrote to the Rugby Football Union and the actions of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister towards the British Olympic Association in 1980?
Mr. Carlisle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue before the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) does so, because that will save another intervention. I agree that at that time many Conservative Members felt unhappy, just as my hon. Friend the then Minister for Sport must have felt unhappy, about the objection of the Government of the day, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, towards our teams going to Moscow. I have said before and I shall say again that probably the silliest political mistake that I have made was in following my right hon. Friend and my Government colleagues through the Lobby that evening. I have always said that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
On other matters, I am totally behind my hon. Friends who are responsible for sport; my argument with them is purely on this point, but it is regrettable that they have now aligned themselves to various bodies in the anti-South African brigade which they must find strange bedfellows.
Only an hour or so ago, as I came into the House, I met Mr. Sam Ramsamy who is the general secretary of SANROC, the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee, who is a charming man. He is a South African who has not been near the place for 15 years because he keeps refusing to go there. He runs an organisation that works on the theory that we should not have normal sport in an abnormal society. However, Mr. Ramsamy has found the ground somewhat cut away from him now because the founding father of that organisation, Dr. Dennis Brutus, who has reappeared miraculously from America, and who is a man of far greater stature than Mr. Ramsamy, is now beginning to say that, because of the great advance that has been made in the system of sport in South Africa—in so far as sport can advance within the system of apartheid—we should now be looking towards some form of contact. However, Mr. Ramsamy and SAN ROC continue to peddle the anti-South African line, being fuelled with funds from Eastern Europe, the World Council of Churches and any organisation that wants to support them. That is why I find it somewhat sad that my hon. Friends almost seem to have seen fit to support their line.
The other people who are affected by this are our friends in the Commonwealth, especially in relation to the Commonwealth games. That was one reason why I found the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East so interesting, representing as he does a Scottish constituency. Many people are beginning to say, so be it if—just because British sportsmen and sportswomen choose to exercise what I repeat is their fundamental right of choice to participate in South Africa

711
in sports which, in many cases, are not represented in other countries—decide that because of that participation they do not wish to take part in the games themselves.
It was a tragedy that at Edinburgh last year, for all sorts of reasons, including the treatment received by Miss Zola Budd, who is a British citizen and who was accepted legitimately into this country—[Laughter.] Opposition Member laugh, but I wonder whether they would have laughed if Miss Zola Budd had been black rather than white—[Hors. MEMBERS: She would never have got into the country."]—and I wonder what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) would have said. Be that as it may, the Commonwealth games went ahead and the losers were not those who took part in the wonderful competition and who achieved so much; the losers were the black African countries. Their support comes from the Commonwealth and from the Commonwealth Secretariat, an office in London run by Sir Sonny Ramphal, who is, of course, a man of certain doubtful parentage from Guyana, on the basis of his attitudes towards the well-being of the Commonwealth and towards South Africa.
If the Commonwealth games can be played only on the basis of looking over one's shoulder the whole time to see whether someone is offending in relation to South Africa, which is a country without any connection with those games, something must be wrong somewhere.
Mr. David Winnick rose——
Mr. Carlisle: I may give way a little later, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
Added to all that, there is the machinery of protest from the United Nations. Only recently the United Nations appointed yet another Sports Commission against Apartheid. Of course, it had certain difficulties in finding members. On 3 October 1988, the first meeting ended in failure because only eight nominations were received from various countries and the commission should have comprised 15 members. Later, however, it was decided to appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman. The representatives came from Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines and the Ukraine. They were noble gentleman in their own way but one begins to question their attitude to and interest in South Africa.
Time and time again, reference is made in this House and elsewhere to the United Nations blacklist, which must have been thought out in the middle of the night by certain people who have what I believe to be an evil intent towards the people of South Africa, whatever the colour of their skin, and especially to those who are sportsmen and women. However, the blacklist was passed by the United Nations and those sportsmen and sportswomen are then vilified wherever they go just because they have exercised their freedom of choice and their right to go to an area or a country where, as I shall explain, they believe that great progress has been made in sport in breaking down the constitution of apartheid.
For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to only two examples. The first refers to rugby which, as many hon. Members know, is almost a religion in South Africa. The South African Rugby Board has made tremendous progress in raising funds, especially in the rural areas, to make absolutely certain that those who play that sport in that country do so on the basis of being free from discrimination on the grounds of "race, colour and ethnic origin" as stated in the Gleneagles agreement. At no club
712
in South Africa that is affiliated to the South African Rugby Board could any hon. Member find any discrimination in selection, the way in which the club is run or the spectators who go to the grounds, unlike the position with those that are affiliated to the South African Council on Sport.
Such enormous strides have been made that Dr. Danie Craven visited Lusaka to meet members of the African National Congress to discuss a basis for the fulfilment of South Africa's desire to return to international sport. The silence from the Opposition was deafening; they said not a word against that initiative. Indeed, words were said by Conservative Members because of the apparent naivety of Dr. Craven. However, that meeting established that even the ANC is prepared to consider whether there should be a place within the international fold for people of whatever sport, and of all colours, who are prepared to promote their sport, despite Government laws of the day, on the basis of no discrimination.
The other major sport where enormous progress has been made is cricket. The South African Cricket Union enjoyed its centenary only a few weeks ago and many notable British cricketers visited South Africa, including myself. No doubt that will prompt the hon. Member for Walsall, North to recite his usual catalogue from the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Winnick: How many trips has the hon. Gentleman made to South Africa? Were they paid for by the South African authorities? If, as the hon. Gentleman has previously admitted, that is the case, would it not be better for his reputation if he prefaced his remarks with a declaration to the House?
Mr. Carlisle: If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had felt such a declaration to be necessary, I am sure that you would have asked me to make one. The hon. Member for Walsall, North has made similar interventions so many times—in fact, almost every time that I speak—that he is probably more up to date with the register than I am. He knows full well that the majority, although not all, of my visits to South Africa have been financed by various authorities within that country, be they sporting bodies, Government, Round Table or Rotary. I have been to that country many times, and always travelled first class and stayed in first-class hotels—information that I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to have.
I can claim, which the hon. Gentleman cannot, to have some personal knowledge of events in South Africa. His criticism, both inside and outside the House, is always made from afar, as is that of Sam Ramsamy and Sonny Rampha. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not suggesting that we cannot criticise a country—we have done so in respect of Romania and other countries—without some sense of authority. However, as I and some of my hon. Friends have been to South Africa in various guises, we have a knowledge that the hon. Gentleman, who sits there in his white coat, does not have. I suggest that he accepts the various offers to travel to that side of the free world in the way that his hon. Friends accept offers to travel to the other side.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does not the Register of Members' Interests state:

713
"The registering of interests is additional to, and in no way a replacement of, the requirement on Members to declare their interests when they speak in debate"?
That requirement is not a convention, but a rule of the House. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) should have declared his free visits to South Africa at the commencement of his speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I confirm that the words quoted by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are correct. If hon. Members have interests to declare, it is the custom that they do so at the outset of their speeches.
Mr. Carlisle: I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will take my original words on the basis that, had I declared an interest that is well known to the House—and I apologise for not doing so—the number of interventions from the hon. Member for Walsall, North would have been pre-empted because he would have had to think of something else to say—which, in his case, is somewhat difficult.
The progress made in cricket is, perhaps, the crux of what is happening in South Africa. Within the past two years, 60,000 black children, who have never even held a cricket bat because they thought cricket a white man's sport, have been coached by players from Britain and South Africa and have enjoyed a game that many hon. Members enjoy. That initiative has, on the whole, been financed by South African companies. The crucial part of that programme has been the arrival of British coaches who often spend the majority of their time in the black townships. Despite that, in January the International Cricket Conference passed regulations that will discourage and possibly even prevent many English coaches who have aspirations to represent their country from going to those black townships to help those children.
The House—like, indeed, the International Cricket Conference—should ask itself whether it is fair or moral for those children to be denied coaching by players from this country and elsewhere simply because the ICC thinks that that will preserve international cricket. If the only way to preserve an international sport is through blackmail and hypocrisy, there is something wrong with sport. Children in, for example, Alexandria will not now receive coaching from some of the lesser players on the English cricket circuit. Do hon. Members really believe that that helps those children? I believe it to be a barrier to one of the greatest sporting challenges of the past few years.
We shall no doubt return to this subject, which has bedevilled the sporting world for some years and will continue to do so until, perhaps, just men and women of true call, "Foul; enough is enough." It is time that we were fair to those whom we are trying to benefit. It is extraordinary to say that, because we do not like the colour of a Government or the way in which they run their country, we should deny their sportsmen and women the opportunity to improve their status and their standard of life. That is why I regret certain moves made by Ministers. I hope that the Government will be sensible and remember that freedom of choice should be not only at the heart of Conservative policy but a basic right of mankind.
5.57 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: It is unfortunate that I find myself following the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), whose speech has shown the degree to which he has been bought and sold by the South African Government.
I intend to raise a matter that has ramifications for the Lord Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House from time to time find themselves involved in cases where children have been abducted following matrimonial proceedings. The particular case that I wish to raise relates to my constituent, a Mr. Winstanley. Following a long and fraught divorce battle in the courts and court reporting on the after care and custody of his two children, the High Court in Greater Manchester decided that he should have custody and that they should remain in the United Kingdom until the age of 18. Mr. Winstanley's former wife is a Bulgarian national. In February, without the consent of the court or reference to the family, the children were abducted and taken to Bulgaria. It took from February until 8 May, with the full assistance of the Foreign Office, to establish first, where the children were; secondly, whether they were with their mother; and thirdly, whether they were being properly cared for.
Current law does not provide sufficient protection in abduction cases, irrespective of the decision about whether the children should remain with their father or their mother. It is usual for the courts to take the children's views into account before making a decision.
We require a change in the law to ensure that a child is protected from the activities of a parent or people acting on his or her behalf. For example, at this moment it is quite possible for a child to be removed from the United Kingdom without immigration authorities knowing that the child is a ward of a county court or the High Court. It is possible also for a child to be removed when he or she is still under the care of a social services department. When the High Court determines that a child should remain in the custody of the mother or the father, the parents' passports should be clearly marked to show that the child is in the custody of a parent. That would ensure that immigration officers would be alerted to the fact that a child may be in the process of being abducted by a parent or his or her paid representative. Unless the law is changed, such tugs-of-love will continue.
There are emotional difficulties on both sides. My constituent went through the due processes of the law, and the court determined that it was in the best interests of the children that they remain with the father. Those children, who expressed that wish to the court, were abducted and taken to a country far away from their father, with no opportunity to say that was not what they desired. With the assistance of the Foreign Office, we have been able to ascertain that the children are living with their mother in Bulgaria. However, the Foreign Office is unable to act. Its activities are limited to stating that the children are in good health and that there are opportunities for the father to visit them if the Bulgarian authorities will allow him to do so. It is important for the Home Office to consider reciprocal arrangements with other countries.
Unfortunately, my constituent is one of hundreds of people who will find themselves in a similar position this year, either because of one parent removing children or

715
people being paid to act as agents to abduct children from the United Kingdom. When a custody decision is handed down by a United Kingdom court, it is important to protect not the parents but the children. However, a court order was blatantly broken by a parent disregarding the order or an agent being paid to remove the child. When a child is removed, it is not the British court's responsibility to seek redress in the court of the country in which a child winds up. The parent is responsible for trying to make his or her way through the legal proceedings of a foreign country and to find the financial resources to do so. That is unacceptable. Many parents are unable to pay for legal proceedings in another country.
I appeal to the Bulgarian Government to take urgent steps to ensure that my constituent is allowed to go to Bulgaria and that all facilities will be available to him in term of access to the children and to legal proceedings so that he can determine whether the children wish to remain with their mother or make the journey back to the United Kingdom and present themselves to the court of confirm or vary the custody order that was made earlier this year.
It is important also to amend the Child Abduction Act 1984. It is virtually ineffective. It is effective only if parents or children have prior knowledge of a possible abduction. They can seek a High Court restraining order. It is a major flaw in the law that, unless there is prior knowledge of an abduction, one cannot use the Act to prevent a criminal offence or try to put pressure on the Foreign Office to ensure that children are brought back to the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts. It is part and parcel of reciprocal arrangements that there should be legal aid in the country in which further court proceedings will be held. When a child is abducted from the United Kingdom and court proceedings must take place in the country in which they are residing, it is important that the parents are given full rights within the law, limited as they may be in some countries, and the financial resources to ensure that their rights and those of their children are exercised.
In many cases we are concerned about parents' anxieties, but young children who were born and bred in the United Kingdom and are abducted to a foreign country cannot speak the foreign language, are completely disorientated and are unable to see the other parent or air their views on whether they wish to remain in that country or return to the United Kingdom. It must be a traumatic experience for them. From my interviews with him I understand that it is traumatic for my constituent and his family. Far too often, such trauma cannot be eased. Because of the lack of reciprocal arrangements the Government are unable to take international action. Unless they are given notice, immigration officers, police and social services departments are unable to know whether a child is being illegally removed. There are many measures to ensure that people enter this country legally, so surely we can take some steps to ensure that children are not illegally removed.
This is the second such case that has been brought to my attention. About 18 months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I were involved in a case in which, against their express wishes and those of the social services department, two young girls were removed to Iran. The mother was also removed. Because the authorities had no jurisdiction or prior knowledge of the abduction, the father went to the port of Hull, got on to a ferry to Holland, went across Europe, and then got on a plane to Iran. To this day, the mother does not know
716
whether her children are alive or are being cared for. The British courts and the Government are unable to assist parents in such cases.
Mr. Winstanley's case shows the need for the Government to examine possible reciprocal arrangements and ensure that, whenever a custody order is made, both parents' passports are marked accordingly so that authorities at ports of embarkation can be aware of possible abductions. As I said, there should be reciprocal agreements so that parents have full legal rights and financial resources to take their cases to the court of a foreign country.
I hope that the Leader of the House will respond positively. If he cannot respond specifically, will he at least give a commitment that the three Departments involved will follow up discussions with myself and other hon. Members who regularly face these cases? The lives of many of our constituents are shattered because of the inability to protect children who are abducted by a parent or his or her paid agent.
6.9 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I give my full support to the passionate plea that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has made, through my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to the Foreign Office and to the Government of Bulgaria. I believe that it is well established in British law that the welfare of the child is paramount. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described, legal aid or financial assistance should he provided so that the wronged parent can pursue the children in the country to which the mother had taken them.
I wish to refer to two matters in this short debate. First, I want to make a vehement protest about the way in which British Airways treated its passengers at London airport while waiting for the 6.30 pm flight to Belfast on Friday. Those passengers were eventually told that they had to wait for the back-up flight to be made available. I had gone from Westminster to London airport to catch that flight and I know what the other passengers had to endure.
More than 100 passengers were made to stand for an intolerable time—between 40 and 45 minutes—on the ramp leading down to the departure lounge for the Belfast flight. One side of that ramp is glass and through it the full afternoon and evening sun shines. On Friday, the heat was intense and the temperature hovered at about 100 deg F. One can imagine the debilitating effect that that would have on the fittest and youngest, but among the weary passengers standing on that ramp—many of whom had travelled from abroad or within the United Kingdom—were elderly people, children and at least one pregnant woman. It is scandalous that no attempt was made by British Airways staff to find out whether the passengers were in a condition to stand in that heat for so long. No one offered chairs, no one offered any advice and no one said when the back-up plane might be made available. No one seemed to care about the passengers.
The well-advertised back-up aircraft was not available and no one was able to say when it would be. I trust that British Airways will abandon its advertising of such back-up services. I remember one advertisement showing a British Airways aircraft carrying a solitary passenger immediately after the regular flight, which was full, had taken off. That advertisement belongs to the realms of

717
fantasy as I have never seen that happen in reality. The 6.30 regular flight was an hour late leaving for Belfast because, according to British Airways staff, the airline had run out of kerosene. It is incomprehensible that no fuel was available for that flight.
It is possible that there are an insufficient number of staff available and British British Airways must ensure that such staff are available in the future, but that does not stop me condemning the way in which British Airways staff treat passengers for Northern Ireland. The incident on Friday was not unique. I have always thought that the way in which passengers are treated is similar to the way in which cattle are treated. The excuse that is always given is that the staff cannot cope with so many passengers and that the numbers take them by surprise. British Airways seems to be taken by surprise regularly every summer and every winter due to holidays or whatever. It never seems to learn or to care. It is high time that the chairman of British Airways, Lord King, resigned, because, if the buck stops anywhere, it must stop with him. I give notice that in the future the people of Northern Ireland will not accept such intolerable treatment from the staff of British Airways at London airport.
The second matter that I wish to raise concerns elderly people. In the previous general election, my principal opponent —whose campaign was largely run by those now regarded as the organisers of the North Down Conservative group—stated that I was elected, no doubt for the last time, on a dying vote. That is an insulting way to refer to the retired people who voted for me because of my concern for their well-being. Such arrogance and indifference towards pensioners ignores the fact that everyone who lives long enough will become old, and many of those who become old do not have enough money to take care of themselves.
The House should not rise until it is made aware of the plight of many elderly people. I refer particularly to those living in my constituency, but my remarks apply right across the country.
A percentage of pensioners in my constituency were in receipt of what used to be known as supplementary benefit but is now called income support. Recently, when the old-age pension was increased by a relatively small amount, those pensioners were no longer eligible for income support and the slight increase in pension was thus cancelled out by the loss of the supplementary sum. They have also lost other benefits because their incomes are no longer regarded as being below a particular financial limit. In other words, those pensioners are worse off, although the cost of living has increased with inflation at more than 8 per cent. and continuing to rise.
I have visited the homes of many pensioners in my constituency and I have seen how they have to think carefully about how they spend their pittance, budgeting carefully to decide what they can afford and what they must do without. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this grievous situation. There is an undeniable case for doing justice to our senior citizens who have worked hard throughout their long years. In my view, what is required is an immediate and substantial increase in the old age pension.
6.17 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I fully support what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said about pensioners. Pensioners are being treated with contempt by the Government. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is to support the Labour party in every way he can, although I appreciate that he cannot actually do so in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) again sought to defend the indefensible. As I understand it, part of his argument is that he has the advantage of going on trips to South Africa. He was forced to declare his interest as a result of an intervention from the Opposition.
Mr. John Carlisle indicated dissent.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he did not declare his interest and that he was forced to do so by the Chair. He should at least agree with me on this, as the events took place just half an hour ago.
Although the hon. Member for Luton, North has the advantage, if it may be so described, of visiting South Africa, he has always done so at the expense of the South African authorities or South African organisations. I believe that he once claimed in the Chamber never to have paid for such a trip. I have never been to South Africa, but I do not have to prove my point, which has been proved on so many occasions—that South Africa is isolated and will remain so until the apartheid regime is ended. I do not believe that there can be the slightest doubt about that.
I had the honour of being a Member of this place in the mid-1960s, and during that period I protested with other Labour Members constantly about the tortures taking place in Greece. Some hon. Members went on trips to Greece—we know all about those trips—and when they returned they painted a rather different picture of what I knew was taking place in Greece. In 1974, when the colonels' regime came to an end, all that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I had been saying about the torture and other terrible happenings was proved right. We knew that we were right when the colonels were in power. We do not have to go on sponsored trips to find out what is happening, any more than our predecessors needed to go to Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mussolini's Italy to find out what was going on in those countries.
Mr. John Carlisle: If hon. Members go on trips, sponsored or otherwise, it does not mean that they return with the opinions of the bodies that organise them. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who is not in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), the Minister of State, Home Office, and others have been to South Africa, but have returned with views entirely different from my own. Individuals can travel to other countries and return with different opinions, and sometimes their opinions are at odds with the organisations that sponsor their trips.
Mr. Winnick: In the main, those hon. Members who go on sponsored trips tend to return with the views of the organisations or countries which invited them to make the trips. The hon. Gentleman's illustrations are very much the exception. He demonstrates all too well the point that I am making. When he speaks in the House, he says that he speaks on behalf of South Africa. I would claim that he does not even speak on behalf of all the whites of South

719
Africa, but on behalf of a regime and its supporters which have been ostracised and are isolated from the rest of the world. The view that I have expressed is echoed by the Government. Ministers tend to say what I say and not what the hon. Gentleman says. He is an isolated figure in the House.
Before taking up a domestic issue, I wish to say a few words about the happenings in China. It would be unfortunate if the House ignored what is going on in that country. The students in China are to be congratulated on the way in which they have organised and sustained such a massive demonstration under a dictatorship. Ironically, those who follow events in China are aware that limited reforms have undoubtedly taken place in that country, especially since the death of Mao Tse-tung in 1976. Had the reforms of the past 13 years not taken place, it would have been virtually impossible for the current demonstrations to occur. Demonstrations cannot take place very well in conditions of terror. I accept, therefore, that there have been changes—the changes have been welcome and they have been recognised by the House in debates and at Question Time—but the fact remains that they have not been anywhere near sufficient to satisfy those who have been protesting.
I have been taken by surprise, however, although I have followed the demonstrations that have taken place in China in the past and I know what usually happens to demonstrators in that country. I know of those who have been imprisoned. For example, a dissident who is well known in international circles is currently in prison, having been sentenced to 15 years.
We do not know what will happen this week, let alone in the weeks and months to come. I only hope that the basic demand of the students will be met. Hundreds of thousands of students have been demonstrating day and night, and I salute their tremendous courage. It is not so easy sometimes to demonstrate in a democracy, and it is that much more difficult to do so in the conditions that prevail in countries such as China. The students have been joined by workers and many others and I believe that their demands should be met. They are saying that there should be a dialogue between the leadership of China and the representatives of those who have been demonstrating.
We are aware, of course, of the changes and reforms that have occurred in the Soviet Union, especially in the past three or four years, and it is understandable that many people in China want to see the same sort of progress. They do not argue necessarily for parliamentary democracy on the western model—perhaps it is not possible to have that form of democracy at this stage in China, or for some time to come—but many Chinese people want further and substantial changes. They see a neighbouring Communist party ruling the Soviet Union which has brought about many significant changes, including in some instances genuine contests at election time. Many Chinese demonstrating now are also concerned about corruption and favouritism in very high places.
Perhaps the position of Hong Kong has a more direct bearing on the United Kingdom than the events taking place in China. I was not opposed to the agreement made by the British Government with China for the future of Hong Kong. I believe that it was the right agreement in all the circumstances, and I am sure that it would have been made by a Labour Government. The best guarantee for stability in Hong Kong, however, is for the people there to
720
see substantial steps being taken towards democratic change in China, and it is understandable that there were demonstrations in Hong Kong in support of the students. Whatever may be written on paper, and whatever agreement may have been reached with China, the fact is that China remains very much an authoritarian type of dictatorship, if not now a totalitarian state.
If changes can occur in China on the same lines as those taking place in the Soviet Union, I believe that there will be some confidence among the people of Hong Kong, which will perhaps make them more willing to accept that there is a future there for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.
The domestic matter to which I wish to refer is causing a great deal of concern in the borough within my constituency. The Walsall health authority has submitted an expression of interest—that is the phrase used in the White Paper—in two hospitals opting out of the existing National Health Service management structure. One of the hospitals designated for opting-out is the main hospital in the borough. Only two weeks ago I attended the official opening of a large extension to it. I refer to the Manor hospital. There is no support for opting out within the borough, and certainly none within my constituency, and I have received many letters from constituents expressing their disquiet. They have asked me to do what I can to support the efforts being made to ensure that the two hospitals remain in the existing NHS management structure, and I have responded in a way that would be expected of a Labour Member.
Opting out, as many of my constituents who have written to me have rightly observed, is a half-way house privatisation. It is all part of the Government's attempt to erode and destabilise the NHS. That is not the view of the Labour party alone. The Joint Consultants Committee has stated:
"These proposals inevitably change the prime aim of the management of these hospitals, from the provision of adequate care to the community as a whole to the financial success of the hospital. The considerable experience of such hospitals in the USA shows clearly that there will be pressure to encourage admission of patients with conditions that can be treated with financial benefit to the hospital rather than to admit those patients—often the chronic sick—whose treatment is likely to lead to little or no such financial benefit."
I imagine that most of the members of the Joint Consultants Committee do not vote for the Labour party, but I accept entirely what they have said. I have said repeatedly in my constituency, and I have written to this effect to the Secretary of State, that the Government talk constantly about participation and insist that voting is essential.
Before any decision is made for the two hospitals in my constituency to become what is described as NHS hospital trusts—that is, before any decision is made by the Secretary of State—there should be a ballot. Surely that is not asking too much. Is not that part and parcel of democracy? I have argued that in every ward and polling district within the borough the residents should have an opportunity to decide whether they want those hospitals to opt out. I am quite willing to abide by the decision reached. If it goes against my views, so be it, although I do not think that that is likely. There should be a ballot for the people to decide.
The Secretary of State for Health is not in the Chamber, but I should like to know whether he would be willing to abide by such a decision. If he says that no ballot is needed,

721
the inevitable response from Labour Members will be, "Why not?" Is he afraid of the outcome? Does he accept my view that the overwhelming majority of people in my borough, which covers three parliamentary constituencies, are completely opposed to the hospitals opting out of the existing National Health Service management structure? Many of the people who express that view were not Labour voters, or at least not at the last general election. When the Leader of the House responds, I hope that he will pass on what I have said in the usual way to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
There will be a meeting in the borough on Friday at which those who oppose the decision to opt out will make their views clear. I am certain that there will be many more meetings. The point that I shall make at the meeting is that it would be undemocratic and incompatible with any concept of democracy for the hospitals concerned to be withdrawn from the existing NHS management structure without any ballot of the residents. Nor has there been any suggestion that the medical and non-medical staff at the hospitals should be balloted. They have not been asked for their views either. I therefore thought it only right and proper that that issue, which is of great concern in my borough, should be aired at the first opportunity on the Floor of the House.
6.31 pm
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the spring recess, which actually feels more like the summer recess, I want to raise three brief points.
My first point concerns Basildon district council, which has increased its rates this year by 57·9 per cent. I can understand my hon. Friends being aghast at that, because that is the largest rate increase in the country. That increase has nothing to do with the provision of essential services, but everything to do with the enhancement of leisure facilities.
During the past year in Basildon, we have experienced what could be described as a hung council. It was a hung council by virtue of a Liberal councillor who described himself as an independent——
Mr. Alistair Burt: Where are the Liberals?
Mr. Amess: As my hon. Friend asks, where are they now?
On every conceivable opportunity, that Liberal councillor voted with the Labour party and—surprise, surprise—after the county elections this year this so-called Liberal-cum-independent officially joined the Labour party.
One of the many aspects that we must consider in dealing with this very damaging rate increase in Basildon is that of the direct labour organisation report. I have a copy of a note from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment which states:
"Basildon's DLO report for 1987–88, sent to the Department, does indeed confirm a current loss of £634,000 on building maintenance work. Since this represents 58 per cent. of the turnover in this category, it is a serious financial failure. The deficit was charged in the first instance to the DLO reserve fund with the balance charged to the general rate fund as required by the DLO legislation … The Secretary of State is empowered ultimately to order closure of a DLO if it
722
fails to achieve the financial target of a 5 per cent. rate of return on capital employed and the authority are unable to provide a statutory explanation."
My constituents will rightly ask how on earth we have managed to lose £634,000.
However, it gets worse. We built a theatre at a cost of £8·5 million. I applaud any local authority which wishes to build theatres for us all to enjoy. Unfortunately, in Basildon we did not have a penny to finance the theatre's costs. Through creative accountancy, a company was set up and the theatre has been so organised that if every seat was occupied 365 days of the year, it would still lose a considerable amount of money.
The people I represent in Basildon welcome the community charge. We believe that Socialists are afraid of the community charge because the ratepayers will see clearly the result of irresponsible financial expenditure like that which occured in Basildon.
My second point relates to the plight of travelling people, which is hardly a new subject for us to consider. I fully recognise the enormous difference between gipsies and travelling people. Recently I drove through Maldon, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I noted that a number of travelling people had arrived in his area.
We have an organised site in Basildon which travelling people are welcome to use. However, a ridiculous state of affairs arose two weeks ago, when travelling people arrived at a municipal car park next to a leisure area and set up home. That has caused serious disruption locally involving enormous financial consequences in the amount of money required to clear up their mess. Although I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware of this, I remind him that travelling people can cause disruption to local schools.
Mr. McCartney: I live next to a gipsy caravan site and had no objection to supporting the application for it to be built. One of the problems with the overspill of travelling people or gipsy families involves the irresponsibility of some Conservative-controlled local authorities which refuse to be designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and utilise resources which I congratulate the Department of the Environment on providing to local authorities. The Department sometimes provides grants of nearly 100 per cent. to provide facilities to prevent overspills. If the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is concerned about local government expenditure, he should have a go at Conservative-controlled authorities which turn a blind eye to those problems.
Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman will not satisfy my constituents. I know how closely he has been following my speech, during which I said that we have a Socialist council in Basildon—which I know he would applaud—and we have a site which the travelling people are not using. The irresponsible way in which Socialists, whether they be Members of Parliament or district councillors, can applaud those travelling people is very unfair.
My final point relates to abortion. I had understood that all Members of Parliament regarded life as the most precious gift of all. We all fight to get to the House because we want to participate in the legislative process, and I had understood that legislation was all about organising people's lives. The 649 other hon. Members in this place

723
must regard life as the most important thing for us all. Why then do we always fail to have a vote to determine the stage at which an abortion can he obtained?
It is extraordinary that hon. Members who all have hospitals in their constituencies are very concerned about what goes on in the special baby units where pre-term babies are being kept alive 24 hours a day after being born at 22, 23 and 24 weeks when in those same hospitals it is possible for someone to obtain an abortion at up to 28 weeks.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend find it strange that on many occasions we have found time to debate capital punishment but rarely have time to reach conclusions on this country's unsatisfactory abortion laws?
Mr. Amess: I certainly find it strange. My views on capital punishment do not contradict my views on abortion, but I shall not detain the House with further details.
There is great unrest throughout the country, with people failing to understand why it is that an abortion Bill could come before the House last year, but that for procedural reason we were unable to continue voting on it. What are right hon. and hon. Members frightened of?
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend speaks with passion of his concern about abortion law, but what is he doing to help the 5,600 disabled children who are in institutional care because their families cannot cope with them? What is he doing to help find families for those children? Does he not think that handicapped children are in even greater need of love and care than normal children? What is he doing to help them?
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that subject. If he will consult my constituents, they can give him chapter and verse on how I am involved in helping disabled people locally. However, that has nothing to do with the subject of my contribution. I refuse to compromise. As far as I am concerned, life begins at conception.
Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, every sperm is sacred.
Mr. Amess: However, I recognise that politics is the art of the possible. If 1 vote for termination at 18, 19 or 20 weeks, of course I am compromising myself—but I welcome any measure that will reduce the period of time during which an abortion can be obtained if that saves even one life.
I hope that before the next general election the House will be allowed to reach a conclusion on abortion reform. When that happens, I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member will deny to others that which they would not deny themselves, but will join me and other right hon. and hon. Members in protecting the unborn child.
6.42 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to raise the subject of the need to tell the truth to the House of Commons. For 20 years, I believed more or less automatically anything said by Ministers of whatever party at the Dispatch Box. If I now seem unduly
724
suspicious, it is a matter of being once bitten, twice shy. I wish to raise one subject briefly, and one other at far greater length.
The first concerns this afternoon's statement about the expulsion of Russian diplomats. I have a question for the Lord President of the Council that he can send to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to answer. It is the same question that I put to the Foreign Secretary this afternoon which he did not answer. My question concerns the "incontrovertible evidence" that gave rise to the expulsions. Was it in any way raised with Lord Griffiths and his fellow members of the Security Commission? If not, what is the purpose of the Security Commission'? Some right hon. and hon. Members would like a second opinion of that "incontrovertible evidence". I am not asking to see that evidence myself. I am not even suggesting that those of my right hon. Friends who are Privy Councillors should see it. But after all that has happened, a judge of the Court of Appeal should have agreed that the evidence was incontrovertible.
We have been through Zircon, Westland and GCHQ. There has been a whole series of economies with the truth. It is in that context that I ask whether Lord Griffiths and his colleagues were consulted about that decision.
The second issue I want to raise relates to the unpopular subject of what happened in Gibraltar. Right hon. and hon. Members will see from a letter to me from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he has placed in the Library copies of a statement made by a Spanish police officer concerning the surveillance of three IRA personnel—Mairead Farrell, Daniel McCann and Sean Savage—in the period prior to their deaths at the hands of the SAS in Gibraltar on 6 March last year.
That statement, which maintains that the Spanish police "lost" the three IRA members on 4 March, two days before the shootings, was presented to the Gibraltar coroner during the inquest. The coroner refused to answer my letter to him. I do not complain, but I received a very courteous reply to my letter asking certain questions of the coroner, which he declined to answer. Nevertheless, following the Gibraltar coroner's rules, he declined to accept that statement as evidence because there was no witness to testify under oath.
The statement then surfaced in The Sunday Times and I understand that it was passed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Lord Windlesham during his inquiry into the Thames Television programme "Death on the Rock". I say in parenthesis that Lord Windlesham did an honest job and that the response to his inquiry by Lord Trefgarne in another place was among the most odious and unacceptable statements made from a Front Bench that there has ever been during my 27 years in the House.
The apparent purpose of disclosing that statement was to discredit the programme's claim that the IRA personnel had been under Spanish surveillance up to the time of their arrival in Gibraltar. I see from the Minister's letter that the Spanish police officer's statement was given at Malaga police station to the Gibraltar coroner's officer, Chief Inspector Correa. According both to the Minister's letter and to the chief inspector's sworn evidence to the inquest, no Spanish judge was present when the statement was given. In his evidence, Chief Inspector Correa said that no Spanish judge was available that day.
That assertion raises a central question in the Gibraltar controversy, for it is a matter of record that the Spanish Interior Minister, Mr. Jose Luis Corcuera, told his

725
country's senate on 11 April this year that the Spanish police officer concerned made his statement about surveillance before a judge in Malaga. Last week, I visited Spain officially as a member of an all-party group, and had informal conversations in the Cortes. Considerable concern was expressed about the matter, because at issue is the truthfulness or otherwise of a Spanish Minister in making a statement to the Spanish Parliament. "This," said Mr. Corcuera, "is the way in which it should always be done"—that is, the hearing before a judge.
Only last week, on 19 May, the spokesman for the Spanish police in Madrid, Mr. Manuel Jimenez Cuevas, announced publicly that the statement had been made on 8 August 1988, in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga. Thus a contradiction has arisen. If the statement placed in the Library of the House of Commons by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the genuine account of events by the Spanish police, the Interior Minister of Spain has misinformed his country's Senate about the circumstances in which the statement was taken, and the Spanish police themselves appear to be under a serious misapprehension.
If, on the other hand, the Spanish Interior Minister was telling the truth in his country's Senate, that raises a still more serious question: is the statement placed in the Library of the House by the Minister of State the only Spanish account of what took place between 4 and 6 March, or are there two separate statements—one taken in peculiar circumstances by the Gibraltar coroner's officer, Chief Inspector Correa, and the other made in accordance with normal Spanish practice in front of an examining magistrate?
May I ask the Lord President whether he can obtain clarification from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on whether it has in its possession a second Spanish statement on surveillance made on 8 August last year in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga? If it received such a statement, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office explain why it apparently made no attempt to introduce it at the coroner's inquest in Gibraltar last year, and will it now place a copy of that second statement—made in front of an examining magistrate in Malaga—in the Library of the House of Commons?
I have four questions. First, was the statement made by a Spanish police officer on 8 August 1988 in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga ever received by the British authorities? Secondly, on what date was the statement made by a Spanish police officer in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga received by the British authorities, and on what date was that same statement passed to the coroner in Gibraltar? Thirdly, where is the statement made by a Spanish police officer in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga now held? Fourthly, will the Government place the statement made by a Spanish police officer in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga in the Library of the House of Commons? The two statements are in the Library's possession, and, indeed, in mine.
I believe that this is an important matter of truthfulness to the House of Commons or otherwise, which should be cleared up somehow before we go into recess.
726
Finally—I will be very brief—there is the now well-known statement by Sir Leon Brittan. The Lord President will be thankful that I do not propose to regurgitate the subjects that he and I have so often bandied across the Floor of the House. I think, however, that it would be healthy if the Prime Minister were now to come to the House and say, "Yes, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell did keep me fully informed about the progress of my quite improper idea to get the Solicitor-General to write a letter and then leak it. They kept me fully informed about the role of Sir Leon Brittan, and when I was under pressure I did tell a self-preserving fib to the House of Commons.'
Parliament really cannot operate properly if Ministers, however senior, get away with lying.
6.45 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I wish to raise three issues, two briefly and one somewhat more thoroughly. The first, touched on briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), is the problem of itinerants and their proper control.
In my constituency, which has designated sites, we have had persistent trouble with itinerants for many years. We have had outbreaks of trouble in Headcorn, Staplehurst and Hunton, but now we are suffering a serious outbreak in Marden—and I mean trouble in the truest sense of the word. My constituents have been physically threatened, and in one case assaulted, by people who have encamped themselves illegally without permission, and who insist on staying.
It is not very surprising that they insist on staying when enforcement procedures are so inadequate for what is required, and when the workings of the law take so long that any itinerant can encamp himself illegally, get connected up to essential services and sit and laugh while the authorities try to remove him, no matter what trouble he may be causing. This is not a new problem; it is an extremely old one, and is certainly not peculiar to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. Yet there is a lack of will to tackle the problem, and I do not believe that we should adjourn until we have examined it in rather more detail.
It is not very difficult to make the law easier to enforce. If, in accordance with the recommendations of the Carnross report, we made stop notices applicable to caravans—as they are to other dwellings and constructions —it would be possible to bring about immediate enforcement of the law. If we made it impossible for people to obtain connection to services when illegally encamped, it would be much more uncomfortable for them to stay. Meanwhile, the nuisance continues and there is an absence of will. I find it difficult to face my constituents in Marden when I can deliver them no promise of firm action. The problem has been raised time and again, and I know from experience that action is unlikely to be forthcoming.
Secondly, I should like to raise two issues connected with the aerodrome at Headcorn in my constituency. The first is the nuisance of low-flying aerobatic planes, which have caused considerable problems to neighbours. They certainly appear to have flown lower than they are supposed to, and on one occasion one of them came out of the aerodrome on to a road. I have in my possession a petition signed by hundreds of Headcorn residents.
Almost more serious is the problem of parachuting at Headcorn. I am sure that the House will remember two

727
instances in the past two years of civilian parachutists being killed as a result of collision with aircraft. The first concerned one of my constituents, a young girl making a jump for charity, who fell on to the rotating blades of a helicopter that was on the landing ground. When I raised the issue and asked how landing parachutists and aircraft taking off could possibly have been allowed to mix, I was told, "It was her first jump: she was inexperienced. Had she known what to do, the tragedy might have been averted."
The second incident did not involve a constituent, but it happened at Headcorn. This was a very experienced civilian parachutist, again a young girl but in this case on her 35th jump. As she was landing, she fell on to the propellors of an aircraft. It would be very simple, and it would alleviate a great deal of distress both to relatives and to others, to separate completely, by law, the areas where parachutists land and those where aircraft land and take off. I have no idea why that suggestion is being so comprehensively ignored and why such a mountain is being made of what I believe would be a molehill of legislation that could save lives.
It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend if I make a plea to him that is in line with the third matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. At this moment, as we propose to adjourn for the spring recess, during which we shall not consider any legislation, there is a law that allows one child in an incubator to be loved and cherished and to have all the resources of medical science put at his or her disposal in an effort to save it while another child, of exactly the same age, at exactly the same level of development and with exactly the same level of sentience, can be dismembered alive in its mother's womb.
If hon. Members can adjourn for the spring recess leaving a law of that sort on the statute book, there is something seriously wrong. I urge my right hon. Friend at least to use the time offered by the spring recess to reflect seriously on the fact that we shall not let this issue rest, that it will not go away and that it is a thoroughly bad law that treats two identical children in such a completely different way.
Every time that an hon. Member raises the plight of the unborn, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) gets to his feet and demands to be told why we are not talking about those who have been born. My hon. Friend's interest in handicapped children and his own position with regard to a handicapped child are known and respected. However, when he talks about handicapped children, I do not intervene and demand to be told why he is not talking about old-age pensioners. When another hon. Member is talking about old-age pensioners, I do not ask why he or she is not talking about single parents. If another hon. Member refers to single parents, I do not demand to he told why he or she is not talking about the disabled in general. It is foolish to say that if one is raising the plight of the unborn one cannot therefore possibly care about those who have been born and that one is neglecting one's duty towards them. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East to reflect on that fact.
An anomaly of our crazy abortion laws is that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 provides that it is illegal to destroy a child who is capable of being born alive
728
but that it is perfectly legal to poison the foetus before abortion in order to ensure that it is not born alive. A horrific anomaly of that kind requires urgent attention.
Then there are the activities of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. That service seems to be limited entirely to terminations. We have had endless reports of unsympathetic treatment when those who turn to the service for help say that they do not want terminations. There is the case of the Carlisle baby who was born alive but who is still not registered. The request for an inquest was turned down, although an inquest would normally have been a formality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred to the fact that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members are in favour of some reform of the abortion law, although I recognise that there is division as to where exactly the line should be drawn. Despite that overwhelming majority, a small group of people, arrogant in their motives, wish to thwart the will of Parliament. Their methods and procedures are impudent and they have consistently frustrated the will of the House.
Why would it be such a major shift in their thinking if the Government decided to deal with this question? If embryology is a fit subject for the Government, if a small baby not yet 14 days old in the womb is a fit subject for the Government, how much more is it a fit subject for them when that baby is fully developed and sentient at 18 weeks? I have asked my right hon. Friend before, and I ask him again now, to say when this matter will receive the attention that Parliament wants it to receive and that the country wants it to receive but that a tiny group of people are determined that it should not have.
7.4 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: My concern is the catastrophic decline in the population of the African elephant, due to illegal ivory poaching, which is becoming more desperate by the day. It has reached the point where I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the spring recess until we have had a full debate on the subject.
Recent reports from conservation groups have produced incontrovertible evidence to show that we are now at a critical point. Ivory poaching activity has increased dramatically over recent months and years. One of the problems is that a number of dirty wars are going on in Africa—civil wars and terrorist activities. Those wars are, in part, being financed by the illegal trade in endangered species—live animals and animal products, especially elephant ivory and black rhino horn. The tirade is abominable and immoral and a crime against the living world.
I know that there is considerable sympathy in the House for the plight of the African elephant and that the Leader of the House shares that concern. He answered a question to that effect last week. Words, however, are insufficient. We need political action, which must be immediate and dramatic. Time is not on the side of the African elephant.
The population of African elephants has fallen from 2·3 million in 1970 to around 700,000 today, and 80,000 African elephants a year are being slaughtered. It is believed that by the year 2000, if the current trend continues, the African elephant will be all but extinct. Although it is claimed that there is a 50:50 balance between legal and illegal ivory trading, I estimate that

729
perhaps 75 per cent. of all ivory trade is illegal at the outset. That is because certain corrupt African Governments and officials give export permits to illegal ivory.
The convention on international trade in endangered species—an organisation that is supposed to be regulating this trade—retrospectively legitimises what it knows to be illegal ivory. There have been a number of examples in this country. A recent example involved a shipment of illegal ivory that was landed at Gatwick airport—1,464 kilos from Zaire. After CITES allowed the tusks to be renumbered, the Department of the Environment granted a licence. It appears that that process is about to be repeated again, this time with a cargo of 1,025 kilos of illegal ivory, again from Zaire, which is now at Heathrow airport.
Why is that allowed to happen? Why does CITES accept money from ivory dealers, for example, which must put in question its impartiality? Why does the Department of the Environment retrospectively legalise cargoes of illegally imported ivory? Britain is clearly being used as one of the world's major staging posts for the passage of illegal ivory which then goes to Dubai, Hong Kong and Japan, often with false papers, where it is made into jewellery, billiard balls and snooker balls, carvings and piano keys for export back to Europe and North America.
I ask the Leader of the House to put it to his colleagues, because I know that he is on our side, first, that the British Government must impose an immediate ban on the import and export of raw and worked ivory as an example both to the world and, in particular, to the EEC. We must do that as a prelude to establishing a worldwide ban on the ivory trade.
Secondly, there must be a ministerial inquiry into the actions of the Department of the Environment in colluding with CITES in legalising retrospectively the illegal import of ivory. Ivory that is known to have been illegally imported and that is impounded at the port of entry should not be auctioned off or legalised. It should be seized and destroyed. That is the only way to try to stop the trade.
Thirdly, the Government should insist that CITES must no longer accept funding from ivory dealers. Fourthly, the Government should give immediate assistance by means of human and material resources to those African countries that are desperately trying to protect their remaining elephant herds from the activities of poachers. In certain cases, the British Government should give military assistance, if that is requested.
The African elephant is one of the largest, most gentle and most intelligent creatures on our planet. It would be a crime against the world if we allowed the African elephant to become extinct. This country, with all its special connections, cannot stand by waiting for someone else to take action. The screams of the slaughtered elephants of Africa should torment our consciences until firm, decisive and, above all, immediate action is taken. The elephants of Africa desperately need action to save them. The country demands action, and the Government should not hesitate to act.
7.9 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I support the motion, because I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to study care in the community during the short break. We know that the Government are deliberating on their response to the Griffiths report. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has any part in those deliberations but I hope that, if he has, he will take the opportunity to study some of the reports being prepared in Bolton. Bolton has been described by the district audit committee, in a report produced in September last year, as
"very much to the forefront of developments nationally."
Bolton has had a pilot scheme for care in the community since the concept was first heard of in Britain. The town was visited by the Select Committee on Social Services when it was preparing its report. The council has now produced a comprehensive report entitled "A Way to Go: Goal 2000". An active handicap action group has been set up, and it has campaigned and produced reports.
My concern was aroused strongly during the general election campaign when a number of parents came to me and said that they were unable to cope with their problems at home with grown-up children who, because of mental handicap, still had a young mental age. Because of plans to close hospitals, they were left in great doubt about the future for their children. They wanted to know what provision could be made to avoid the development of a two-tier service, in which people coming out of the closed-down hospitals would be provided with adequate dowries, whereas others would be left with a second-rate service, if anything. The tension between the voluntary carers who often have to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every week of the year, and people who are employed by the local authority on a nine-to-five day, five days a week with plenty of holidays, became clear.
One of the ladies to whom I spoke said that she could not accept the power that the local authority held over her life in determining what care services should be provided. The worst aspect of the care services is that those in need of care get the least. The report prepared by the council makes that only too clear. When it talks about people who have challenging behaviour—the most difficult to look after—it found that there was virtually no service provision specific to the needs of those people. In other words, the more help people need, the less they get. Is is unrealistic to regard local authorities as the salvation for these problems. I take some exception to the conclusions reached in the Griffiths report, paragraph 30 of which says:
"if community care means anything, it is that responsibility is placed as near to the individual and his carers as possible."
Sir Roy Griffiths argues that the priorities should be determined
"as local as possible and with the locally elected authority."
That does not necessarily follow. I do not see why we cannot set up locally based groups—they may be called neighbourhood care groups—and follow through the first part of Griffiths recommendation that
"responsibility is placed as near to the individual and his carers as possible"
We should give as much of the budget provision and responsibility as possible to those groups, and let them be run by voluntary carers. That is what people want. That is what the Bolton Handicap Action Group, which is chaired

731
by John Seddon, and which has achieved official recognition as the body which represents handicapped people in Bolton, told me. Leading people, who are known in the town for their concern for the handicapped have written to me. I have had a letter from Mary Kershaw and Barbara Ashman saying:
"We feel that public sector funds could be better used in Bolton if directed by a volunteer care management group.
Could you ask the Government to set up a pilot scheme along these lines in Bolton?"
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put that argument to his colleagues.
The council says:
"We recommend increasing the involvement of other agencies, voluntary or private, with consideration being given to the development of joint projects between two or more agencies, or setting up consortia of several agencies … Parents can be equal members of any such body as long as they see their role as expressing parents' views, and, indirectly, the consumers' `voice'."
Mr. Oliver Holt, who is well known for his work with Mencap and others, says that many problems have arisen because
"over those years the people with the power to make decisions were all `itinerant' professionals and politicians (local + national)) who did not have an absolute commitment to producing a solution. They made their decisions which affected our lives and then passed on to other challenges in other fields.
The parents have at last seen through this charade and must now insist on being genuinely involved in the planning and providing of these services, not just as consultants, but as real partners. I hope you can help to make this happen."
I ask my right hon. Friend to spend a little time during the break considering what can be done to provide more power to the elbow of those who are responsible for keeping the show on the road and providing everyday care.
The value of voluntary carers for the mentally handicapped could be worth nearly £1 billion, but it is not paid for. If anybody thinks that the solution involves paying for care, they should realise that it will cost a lot of money. At the moment, about £1 billion of public money is spent on the care of the mentally handicapped, but the vast majority of that goes on the 60,000 people in residential care. The 100,000 people in domestic care cost the taxpayer only £300 million a year. If they were charged at the same rate as the others, an extra £900 million would have to be provided each year.
If the Government want to harness the energies of the voluntary sector, they can use them in the management and direction of these services. It should not be left to local authorities to harness their energies. I am told that in one local authority area, if voluntary drivers brought disabled people to a day centre, they had to discharge them on the perimeter of the premises because only trade union drivers were allowed to come on to the premises, as that was their job. That shows how conflicts between trade union-dominated local authorities and the voluntary sector can lead to unsatisfactory results. I leave that thought with my right hon. Friend and hope that he can give some attention to it over the short break.
7.18 pm
Mr. John Battle: Other hon. Members have mentioned the need to tell the truth. I have also heard the phrase, "the right to life". I shall refer to what might seem a small matter of definition but one which I believe
732
is vital to my constituents and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other people. I refer to the definition of poverty.
Recently, we have heard Ministers challenge the use of the word "poverty", perhaps with an idea that they can simply define poverty away. This morning, before I came down to the House, I met a young mother of a seven-week-old child. She brought me a letter from the Yorkshire water authority threatening to cut off her water supply. She came to see me because her private landlard had served her notice that he would evict her next month, and as an afterthought she told me about her problem with the water bill, as she could not see how on earth she could pay that bill from her income. I am more than likely to be spending the recess meeting my constituents, many of whom will be asking me how on earth can they cope with their water bills and electricity bills on their limited incomes and reduced housing benefits, which has been referred to earlier. Many people in my constituency are genuinely strugglingg to balance their weekly budgets.
I urge the Leader of the House to take up with his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Security a particular suggestion and invite him to move towards arbitration on the definition of poverty in Britain by re-establishing the Royal Commission on wealth and income distribution in Britain which his Government so readily abolished when they were elected in 1979.
In recent weeks the Secretary of State for Social Services has declared that he believes poverty to be redundant. The title of his recent lecture was, "The End of the Line for Poverty". It seemed to me that he was telling the poor to get off the economic vehicle as they had reached the terminus. One issue that has been and will continue to be highly contentious is the Government's claim that all are sharing in the benefits of booming Britain. That is not true. Every person in our society is not participating in that much-vaunted increase in wealth. Some are not participating, and some are falling into increasing poverty as a result of the Government's tax and social security policies.
The Secretary of State claimed that his Department has set up a comprehensive list of indicators of standards of living. Yet, in a parliamentary reply on 17 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security warned us against using the "Households Below Average Income" statistics. He said:
"It should, however, be noted that the principal objective of the 'Households Below Average Income' statistics is to measure improvements in living standards in different parts of the income-distribution for the population as a whole. The tables are not designed to measure the living standards of individuals by economic status within each decile of the population."
He went on to suggest that the tables do not provide
"a meaningful guide to improved living standards."— [Official Report, 17 March 1989; vol. 149 c. 390–1]
It appears that the Department of Social Security does not have an agreed means of determining the living standards of those on below average incomes.
Last July, the Select Committee on Social Services challenged the statistics on households below average income with the remark:
"the new series does not give complete information about the numbers on low incomes."
Once again, the Secretary of State was determined to blame the victims for their plight, and suggested that it was nothing to do with the policies of the Government, but was the fault of the victim. He referred to

733
"the margin for inefficiency of expenditure."
That was a remarkable phrase. He also referred to
"an allowance for unskilled shoppers".
He seems to think that the problem is that people do not do their shopping properly. The problem is that, on £48·60 a week, with a reduction of £2·15 in help with their housing costs and then being short-changed by 2 per cent. on the allowance for inflation in a single pension, those single pensioners cannot buy the same goods in Morrison's supermarket in Bramley this month as they could in March. If that is not a decline in their standard of living, I do not know what is.
When the Secretary of State has the gall to refer to the skills with which families spend their money, he displays a remarkable lack of knowledge. In my experience, those who have to pay the price in society display remarkable arithmetical accuracy as they have to do their weekly shopping on low budgets. I am tempted to challenge the Secretary of State and ask him whether he can remember the price of the last meal that he ate out. I am sure that most of the people that I represent could say exactly how much they paid for the goods in their shopping trolleys.
In another parliamentary answer, the Under-Secretary of State warned us that
"Any suggestion that 'poverty' can be measured by the distribution of the cake without regard for the changing size of that cake must be questioned."—[Official Report, 21 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 337.]
I entirely agree. We should take into account the distribution of wealth and income in society instead of focusing only on poverty. In that respect, the return of a royal commission that focused on wealth as well as on income would be welcome. Perhaps that royal commission could do worse than explore the concept of participating in the life of society as a source of the definition of what it means to be poor in modern Britain.
Poverty is not simply a lack of money or physical necessities. It excludes certain people in society from that in which the Prime Minister claims to believe in most of all —the freedom of choice. The freedom to eat as we wish, to go where and when we like is not open to everyone. I certainly do not believe that people choose to be poor when it could be suggested that there are other options. Poverty could best be understood comprehensively as a state of partial citizenship. In the context in which the Prime Minister believes that there is no society, it would be difficult to find a basis for common citizenship. The Government seem determined to wipe out any sense of one community of human beings who can only flourish together; and when that happens, the deprivation of the poor becomes invisible. They are marginalised and pushed out of the main economic text.
The Secretary of State said in his lecture:
"Of course as a Government we must keep a careful eye on what is happening to the numbers and the characteristics of the lower-income households. Of course we will continue to give help to the individuals and families who need it."
I have only to reflect on the caseload in my constituency, which I am sure is repeated elsewhere. If that is the case, we are entitled to ask why all our constituency inquiries to DHSS offices receive replies containing the last sentence, "Sorry that we cannot help, even though we would like to in the circumstances".
The Secretary of State continued:
734
"We cannot do this unless we can identify who they really are and identifying them is not helped by arbitrary and exaggerated estimates of the number of people said to be living in poverty."
I agree with that entirely; therefore, I invite the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to establish a royal commission to settle that definition and to bottom out public information. In every debate in the House on social security and in the economy there has been a deep and divisive dispute about the figures of who are in wealth and who are in poverty in Britain. We end up with discrepancies in statements to the House and in the facts and figures provided by the statistical services of the Library. Last July the "Households Below Average Income," statistics were challenged as not giving an adequate account of the position.
I refuse to accept that, as one newspaper put it,
"some are poor because nature has not given them the gift of earning much. Some are poor by ill luck."
Poverty is not misfortune, bad luck or inevitable, or due to laziness, ignorance or lack of development. It is the direct result of political and economic decisions, not least in this House. It is manufactured by particular policies and systems. It is a political problem that needs a political answer, and one way in which we could tackle it is not by targeting the poorest, in the Government's terms, nor by the trickle-down theory of wealth, which certainly seems to dry up before it reaches those who deserve it most. The Government's policies are not delivering economic justice to all in our society. Instead of eulogies on what the Secretary of State called "western material capitalism", the House should strive to deliver public justice. Establishing the royal commission could be an appropriate way of setting the basis for that action.
7.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: My hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised some important issues which the House should address before the spring Adjournment. I shall confine my remarks to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—the extraordinary speech made by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 11 May. I have been asked by some of my colleagues to press the Leader of the House to say whether the Secretary of State's view that poverty in Britain has reached the end of the line is official Government policy.
In his speech, the Secretary of State said that what he described as the stark Dickensian poverty of 100 years ago was no longer widespread. He said that no one could properly be described as poor and that, compared with the standard of poverty set by Booth and Rowntree at the end of the century, people were now living in affluence beyond their wildest dreams. That tells us more about the poverty of the Secretary of State's imagination than about the condition of many poor people. It also tells us about his poverty of knowledge of the subject.
The modern Tory party claims to be the intellectual offspring of Adam Smith. The trouble is that it either does not know or conveniently forgets a great deal of what its father figure said. The Secretary of State's narrow definition of poverty was explicitly rejected by Adam Smith who, referring to what he called the "necessities of life", included

735
"not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but also whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without."
In those circumstances, it is clear that Adam Smith would have disowned the Secretary of State's ludicrous speech of 11 May. All matters to do with poverty are clearly relative to time and place.
I would go further and say that the Secretary of State was wrong and that there are indeed people living in conditions of abject poverty to which Booth and Rowntree would have objected. In his speech, the Secretary of State quoted from Booth's description of Shelton street, which is on the edge of my constituency in Covent Garden. He accepts as "poverty" Booth's description of the conditions prevailing in Shelton street where, as Booth said, whole families occupied one room and in such rooms life at night was unbearable.
The Secretary of State did not need to go back to the 1890s to find families living in one room or whose lives were unbearable during the night. His Department must have copies of the reports on the housing conditions of homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation within a mile or a mile and a half of this Chamber. I will quote from a report about the circumstances—in 1987, not 1887—in which some of our fellow citizens are required to live. It says:
"Even if hotel accommodation is in good order it is rarely appropriate to the needs of young children. It is difficult to maintain hygiene while washing, eating and sleeping in one overcrowded room. High levels of gastro-enteritis, skin disorders and chest infections have been reported. Kitchen facilities are often absent or inadequate, so people are forced to rely on food from cafes and take-aways, which is expensive and may be nutritionally unsatisfactory. The stress of hotel life undermines parents' relationships with each other and their children. Normal child development is impaired through lack of space for safe play and exploration. High rates of accidents to children have been reported, probably due to a combination of lack of space and hazards such as kettles at floor level. There have been difficulties in providing primary health care services to homeless families, including problems in registering with general practitioners leading to lack of continuity of care."
That is not Shelton street in the 1890s, but my constituency and many other parts of central London in the 1980s. It is not Calcutta, but our own capital city.
I will quote from a further report on the conditions in which some people are asked to live. If this is not poverty, I do not know what is. Bloomsbury district health authority's report states:
"In October 1988 in just the Camden part of Bloomsbury there were over 500 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. The Health Visiting Service knew of approximately 200 … Risk to health in bed and breakfast … is well above that of the domiciled population. These risks stem from shared, or lack of amenities, overcrowding and unsafe properties. Infection, accidents, malnutrition, sleep disturbances, low birth weight babies, eating problems, behavioural problems and depression and even death can result."
Those are just some examples of the circumstances in which our fellow citizens are expected to live.
The report goes on to say:
"A woman was found seven days after a caesarian section with no follow-up care, no cot in the room, a seven inch scar, no pain relief. The toilet was two floors down that there was a shared bathroom. The woman's breasts were blistered and she had no idea how to make up bottle feeds or sterilise equipment. This woman was found whilst the Health Visitor was looking for another baby."
In another case the report says:
736
"Two year old twins were found by chance in a hotel room. They had recently been diagnosed as diabetic."
There were three children in one room with the mother. There was nowhere to store insulin, which needs a refrigerator, and there was nowhere safe to keep syringes or needles because there were drug abusers in the hotel. Cooking facilities were limited, although a controlled diet is essential for diabetics. There was a
"High risk of accident and infection, all of which are particularly hard to resolve in diabetics".
There was also stress. All those things make diabetes harder to control.
There were other cases that health visitors had "stumbled across" while visiting bed-and-breakfast families. One included
"a baby three weeks old, who was failing to thrive, and needed three weeks in hospital. Soon after discharge the family moved on and could not be followed up."
Another case involved the mother of a 15-month-old baby. She was illiterate and educationally subnormal but cared for her child very well. Because she had come from another borough, the back-up services had not been able to follow her.
I do not want to get into a dispute about relativities of poverty. The people whom I have just described live in circumstances which Charles Booth, on visiting Shelton street in 1891, would have recognised and described as "poverty stricken". By his Victorian values, thousands of families are living in abject poverty in bed and breakfast accommodation. However, there is a difference between Charles Booth and the Secretary of State; Charles Booth did not travel from a house with a swimming pool in a chauffeur-driven car to a luxury office in Whitehall. He went out and looked at where the poor lived. He checked and logged their circumstances and began to do something about them. He thought that it was wrong for a family to live in one room, and by God he was right.
In contrast, the Secretary of State pretends that such conditions do not exist. He says that poverty is at an end, but it is not. As an elected Member of Parliament, representing hundreds of such families, I find it humiliating that they have to live in such circumstances and that I can do nothing about it. It should also be humiliating for Ministers. The Secretary of State for Health would spend his time better looking after such people than in harassing doctors. It would be better if the Secretary of State for Social Security helped such people. It would be better if the Secretary of State for the Environment built them some houses. It would cost only half as much for them to have a decent house as it costs to keep them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Those are the circumstances that prevail at the end of the Thatcher economic miracle. They are a disgrace, and we shall debate them tomorrow in the debate on inner cities. Conservative Members who spend their time opting out and enjoying themselves in South Africa should not laugh at the circumstances in which some people live. We need a Government who are concerned and committed to doing something. We do not have one, but we shall continue to press until we have.
7.41 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Although right hon. and hon. Members have raised many matters that concern them, to which I shall reply in a moment, it appears that the general wish of the House is to adjourn

737
for the proposed dates of the spring recess. In the seven weeks since the House returned from the Easter recess, eight Bills have been given a Second Reading and further progress has been made on a wide range of others. We can safely adjourn for about 10 days before returning with renewed vigour to tackle more of the Government's far-reaching legislative programme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke of his concern, and that of his constituents, about the closure of two cottage hospitals in Oswestry and Newport. I listened to a radio programme the other day when the BBC was on strike—some of the programmes are much better when it is on strike—about cottage hospitals in Shropshire. Anyone who listened to that programme would have been impressed by the voluntary effort that is made in those hospitals, which I hope will be channelled into new sectors. My right hon. Friend is aware of the proposals to rationalise the hospitals as a consequence of the new district hospital at Telford.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who told me that, unfortunately, he would have to leave the Chamber, raised the case of nuclear test veterans. The Government's policy is based on the report published in January 1988 by the independent expert advisers on radiological matters of the National Radiological Protection Board. The board's report did not establish any causal relation between increased incidence of any cancer and participation in the United Kingdom's nuclear test programmes of the 1950s and 1960s. The policy of the Ministry of Defence is to pay appropriate compensation wherever Crown liability is established. As there is no firm evidence to show that the health of British test veterans was affected by exposure to radiation during the United Kingdom's test programmes—a view supported by the board's findings—the Government have taken the view, following legal advice, that the Crown cannot be held liable for any ill health suffered by those who participated and that it would not, therefore, be appropriate to pay compensation. I know that that will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, who campaigns hard for the causes about which he is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir. F. Montgomery) made, as he sometimes does on these occasions, a number of interesting points. He mentioned confiscated drug money being used to fight drugs. The Government are well aware that the vital work of combating all types of serious crime makes heavy demands on the police. However, difficulties of principle and practice weigh against passing confiscated funds directly to law enforcement work. Resources must be allocated according to an assessment of overall priorities and needs, to which all public services must be subject. Such income would vary and would be unreliable, and no well-planned initiative could afford to depend on it. Nevertheless, we are discussing the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers to see whether there are practical options which may help to resolve funding difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale and the hon. Member for Newham, NorthWest (Mr. Banks) mentioned the plight of the African elephant. I recognise how concerned people are, but I cannot give the hon. Member for Newham, North-West the answers that
738
he wants. I shall, however, refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and if there is more information I will certainly give it to the hon. Gentleman. The Government understand and share the concern about the plight of the African elephant and we shall consider carefully any proposal to ban trade in African ivory in the light of available scientific evidence and in consultation with our European partners. Hong Kong is 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.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West based much of his argument on an article that appeared in The Observer—or at least, he and The Observer obtained their information from the same source. I do not want to go into much detail because I do not want to say anything that might prejudice any inquiries that are taking place. The Government believe that the Observer article is inaccurate and misleading in several respects. Details of the case cannot be released and must be kept in confidence at present. However, the Government comply fully with the requirements of the ivory trade control procedures when considering all ivory import and export applications. The article criticises the Department of the Environment for issuing ivory permits, claiming that there are strong signs that ivory had been poached. The position is considerably more complicated than that, but I should prefer not to be drawn further on it at this stage. I hope that I can obtain the agreement of my colleagues to send my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West further information.
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale about dogs and the dog registration scheme. As I think he knows—I regret having to say it to him—the Government do not intend to introduce a registration scheme for dogs. It would entail expensive bureaucracy and there is no evidence that it would be more successful than the old licensing system in dealing with the problem of stray dogs. The problem is caused by irresponsible owners, who would be least likely to comply with a registration scheme.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised the subject of ticket touts. I do not have much more to say than was said to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). I find the business pretty disagreeable, as does the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister. The activities of ticket touts are undoubtedly unpopular, but to abolish them would reduce or end the ability and readiness of reputable ticket agencies to buy unwanted tickets and make them available to those who would rather pay a premium price than miss an event. It would also restrict the freedom of individuals to sell unwanted tickets. A ban could lead to the development of an underground market selling tickets at even more highly inflated prices. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an important point about safety aspects, with particular reference to the recent tragedy. I shall see that his remarks are drawn to the attention of Lord Justice Taylor, who is considering these matters. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about South Africa. I had a feeling that I

739
had been there before, with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) bouncing up and down like a jack-in-the-box while my hon. Friend was trying to make his interesting speech. My hon. Friend knows more or less the answer that I shall give. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North says, it is in some ways more supportive of the hon. Gentleman's view than of my hon. Friend's view.
The Government are fully committed to the Gleneagles agreement, which requires Commonwealth Governments to withhold support and discourage sporting contacts by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa. Ministers were acting within the spirit of that policy. The agreement recognises that it is for individual Commonwealth Governments to determine in accordance with their laws how best to discharge those commitments. In the United Kingdom's perception of a free society, the Government's role is limited to giving advice and seeking to persuade—the Government have no powers to prevent individuals from visiting South Africa if they so choose.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the constituency case of Mr. Winstanley. The Government are fully committed to providing the most effective remedies possible for those parents who suffer the agony of child abduction. The Hague convention provides a sufficient remedy for abduction to those countries that have signed and ratified it. The Government hope that many more countries will ratify the convention. In other countries, what can be done is limited, apart from taking action in their courts. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will provide what consular support it can.
Anyone who is worried about the possible unlawful removal of a minor from the jurisdiction of the courts should contact the police, who will alert the immigration service at the ports and passport issuing offices. The more precise the information about a possible unlawful removal, the better the chances of it being prevented. There are also powers under the Family Law Act 1986 for the courts when making a custody order, to order the confiscation of a passport. That may not be of much comfort to the hon. Member for Makerfield, but it is important that those people who are worried about this problem should know what can be done to prevent abduction.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised two matters. He told the horrifying story of Friday night at Heathrow airport before the flight to Belfast, and the effects of the sunshine which others had been enjoying. His vivid description sounded awful. My only comfort is that there is no Government responsibility for the weather or British Airways in that sense, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of those with responsibility in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down referred also to pensioners in his constituency. The Government have kept pensioners' interests high on our list of priorities while maintaining the real value of the state retirement pension. We have pursued policies aimed at creating a stable economic environment so that pensioners' income from other sources increases and keeps its value longer. As a result, pensioners' average total net income increased by 23 per cent. in real terms during our first seven years in office. In addition, pensioners with no other source of income than state benefits saw their gross income increase from 33 per cent. of the average male manual worker's earnings in 1979 to 37 per cent. in 1986.
740
The hon. Member for Walsall, North raised an interesting subject, the issues arising from China. I do not think that he would expect me to make any detailed comment. Obviously, we are continuing to follow events closely. Martial law was declared in parts of Peking on 20 May. Army units have moved into Peking but are blocked by groups of demonstrators from reaching the centre. The situation is tense but calm. We are concerned that the Chinese authorities have found it necessary to impose martial law. We have urged all those involved to exercise moderation and restraint and we hope very much that the situation can be resolved peacefully. I very much agree with the comments on Hong Kong by the hon. Member for Walsall, North. It is natural that the people of Hong Kong are worried about developments in China and that they should wish to express their opinions, but there is no reason to think that recent events in China will effect Hong Kong's future.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to self-governing hospitals. They will remain firmly part of the National Health Service but will be well placed to give patients more choice and provide a better quality of service. Regional health authorities are still considering the many expressions of interest, but they will forward them to the Department of Health by the end of the month.
Mr. Winnick: What about ballots?
Mr. Wakeham: Further arrangements will be announced in due course. It is not for me to make them now. I am sorry, but I must keep going because I have to answer the points made by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is looking at me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said that he had to leave the Chamber, so I will deal with him later. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) raised the issue of gipsies and travelling people. She knows that I have similar problems in my constituency. It is a difficult problem and it is clear that more sites are urgently needed if we are to resolve the problems of unauthorised camping.
My hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and for Maidstone also referred to abortion. I cannot add to what I said during business questions on Thursday, and I have my words in front of me. Two issues come within my responsibility. I hope that there will be an opportunity before the next session for the House to reach a decision on the report of the Procedure Committee on private Members' time. There is also the wider question, which the Government are considering without any commitment, of whether the private Members' procedure is the right way to deal with the matter, or whether there is another way. I certainly have not made any commitment, but we are looking at that point.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned the Soviet expulsions. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to add anything to the full answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave earlier. All the proper steps were taken. However, I can say something about the Security Commission. It is not a standing body, but is normally appointed by the Prime Minister only to investigate any lapse in British security. It would not

741
normally be consulted on issues such as the expulsion of diplomats and it would not normally be expected to investigate such matters.
There has been a full inquiry about the events in Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman raised some points on which I have not had the opportunity of finding detailed information. I will refer those points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. If he considers that there is anything to add, he will write to the hon. Gentleman. If he does not, I will. The hon. Gentleman's remarks on Sir Leon Brittan seem to be a further example of his fertile and fervent imagination, and I have no comment to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone raised the subject of the safety of parachutists. Military pilots have parachute jumping areas marked on their charts for low flying and details are provided in the United Kingdom military handbook. The regulations for civil leisure flying, like parachuting, are a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and I will pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) raised the question of the care service in his constituency. I know of his interest in that. He suggests that we should look wider than the local authority for leadership in those matters. I will refer that to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) raised the subject of poverty. Considerations of definitions of poverty are a proper subject for debate, as is the question of whether the definition should be changed with changing circumstances in our society. No one denies that there are those who do not receive a reasonable share of material resouces for one reason or another. Our proper task is to ensure that our definition is appropriate and that the massive increase in resources is directed in the right direction. The total resources are now about £50 billion per year—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 26th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6th June.

Orders of the Day

  National Maritime Museum Bill [Lords]
  Not amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  8.1 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It is fair to say that the Bill has received general support as it has passed through its various stages in this House and in another place. We had an interesting and lively Second Reading debate on a number of matters relating to the national maritime museum. However, there were no significant differences of opinion on the proposals of the Bill itself.
  I will briefly remind the House of the purpose of this short Bill. It is to equip the board of trustees of the national maritime museum with similar powers to hold land and property to those already enjoyed by the other national museums and galleries. The Bill repeals a provision in the National Maritime Museum Act 1934, which vested the main property occupied by the museum at Greenwich in the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Bill proposes to vest the property with the museum's own board of trustees. There are a number of important safeguards about the use of the property which are repeated and updated in the present Bill.
  The provisions have been welcomed by the museum and will allow the trustees and the director to use the magnificent buildings at Greenwich to even better effect than they have done previously. Since the Second Reading debate I have paid a visit to the museum and I am full of admiration for the imaginative leadership provided by the chairman, Lord Lewin, and the director, Richard Ormond and for the commitment of the staff, many of whom I had the chance to meet. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: As the Minister has said, we debated this matter on Second Reading and, in so far as the Bill gives new powers to the national maritime museum, the Opposition welcome it. But that museum and others will want to know about the funding, powers and responsibilities they are inheriting from the Government and today's debate gives another opportunity for the Minister to explain Government policy briefly and for the House to look in a little more detail at the inheritance of this museum and others.
  The Minister explained that the Bill will transfer property from the Property Services Agency. Few hon. Members of any party have any brief for the PSA and I welcome the fact that the museum's property will be transferred from the PSA. However, the transfer makes sense only if it is properly financed, and on that point, the Minister appears to be self-satisfied. On Second Reading, he said:
  "the National Maritime museum is heading for success … the … museum is an outstanding success story."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 28 February 1989; c. 10.]

  743
  We agree with that in so far as the museum is well managed and we join the Minister is paying tribute to Mr. Richard Ormond. However, that success has been in spite of, rather than as a result of, Government policy.
  There is a problem about the buildings that the Bill will give to the museum. The Government gave the museum £3·5 million this year for repairs and maintenance, but that sum will decline to £2·7 million next year, although the museum estimates that it needs £19 million over the next five years. By any estimate, there is a shortfall of at least £2 million. The repairs include such basics as new heating and wiring, roof repairs and floor strengthening. Does the Minister agree that, when he visited the museum, it was explained to him that the inheritance of the buildings is sour and difficult? If he agrees, what will he do about it? What does he advise the national maritime museum to do?
  The Minister is giving new powers and responsibilities to the museum. Will he tell the museum that it should try to obtain more sponsorship? Prince Charles said last week that it is very much more difficult for the unglamorous side of a museum's world, such as repairs and maintenance, to appeal to sponsors. Will the Minister advise the museum to lengthen its five-year plan to 10 years and, effectively, put off dealing with the repairs and maintenance that are part of the backlog it will inherit from the PSA? That is the state of repairs and the extent of the problem that the Bill will give to the museum. It is a reflection of the degree of care and concern that the Government have shown for the national maritime museum and for other museums, which are being treated in the same way.
  When seen in that context, the transfer of power and responsibilities to the museum, far from being an imaginative move, will look to many hon. Members and to the public not like a transfer of responsibility, but a way of passing the buck for repairs to the museum and of saying to the museum, "You get on with it. We have failed to do our job and have left you with a building with inadequate heating and wiring, leaking roofs and a floor that is not strong enough for many of your artefacts. Now you take over, although we won't fund you any more."
  The House must understand that that is what will happen if it passes the Bill. The Bill is passing on the responsibility for a museum that has been inadequately financed in the past. It will pass on to the museum a £19 million bill for repairs and maintenance.
  The national maritime museum is not the only museum that is suffering. The trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum and the Tate gallery have refused to accept the new powers in this Bill until the position on repairs and maintenance has been worked out. Legislation is not needed in those cases. The Victoria and Albert museum needs £125 million over the next 10 years and it will inherit a backlog of £50 million in repairs and maintenance from the PSA. Its grant from the Government is £7·6 million this year. It is no wonder that Sir Clifford Chetwood, a museum trustee, said recently:
  "Our buildings have suffered from years of neglect while they were maintained by the Government. We will not take over responsibility for them unless the Treasury is prepared to finance this backlog of work."
  Lord Armstrong, the chairman of the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum has said that he agrees that the museum has
  "been underfunded over many years."
  That is the backlog that the V and A has inherited and which the Bill passes on to the national maritime museum.
  744
  As I have said, the Tate gallery is in the same position, needing £27 million-worth of repairs and maintenance. It has buckets in its galleries; its roofs are being distorted by the sun, and the wiring is 50 years old. Three galleries had to be closed last year. Antiquated air conditioning causes high humidity and a temperature that affects many of the exhibits.
  That is what is happening in many of our museums. However, on Second Reading and again this afternoon, the Government have shown that they do not seem to understand the crisis that is building up because of the past 10 years of neglect. In the Bill, the Government seek to pass on the legacy of neglect and underfunding to this museum and to others, telling them to get on with it. That is not good enough and the museum world knows that it is not good enough. Hon. Members must understand what they will be doing if the Bill is enacted. We must ask ourselves whether we trust the Government and whether they should be handing over museums in such a state.
  The problems relate to security and insurance as well as to repairs and maintenance. The national maritime museum has no alarm system when it is open. It relies entirely on the eyes, diligence and alertness of its wardens. Once the doors are opened in the morning, there is no alarm system. Not only are the exhibits not alarmed, but there is no insurance whatsoever and the Tate is about to inherit severe fire protection problems from the PSA.
  The Government have said that everything is wonderful and that they are spending so much money but in reality by 1991 the building programme budget, of which the Minister is so proud, will be £55 million per year. The director of the Museums Association, Dr. Patrick Boylon, has said that an extra £200 million is needed to undertake repairs. However, in 1989–90 the Government are increasing that budget by only 2·1 per cent., and in 1991 it will go up to the magic figure of 2·5 per cent. With inflation at 8 per cent., those museums are running backwards, even without allowing for the fact that, in the south of England, inflation in the cost of building repairs is estimated to be running at 20 per cent. The House must understand the inheritance that it will be passing on to the national maritime museum.
  Does the Minister agree with the figures that I have given? If not, what are his figures? Why does he refuse yet again to face up to reality and conduct a national audit so that he, the museum world and the public can see how serious the position is? He may well say that the Opposition are doom-mongering and taking selective figures but let us have the facts and a national audit so that we can see whether the figures given to me by the Victoria and Albert museum, the Tate gallery and the national maritime museum are wrong. If they are wrong, the Government ought to say exactly where they are wrong and conduct a national audit to make the facts clear.
  The fist element of what we are doing in the Bill is handing over underfunded buildings. The second element relates to the powers of the trustees. As the Minister has already said, the present trustees of the national maritime museum are very good and have real expertise in nautical affairs. They include Lord Lewin; Mr. Wright, a nautical architect; Mr. Corlett, a ship architect; Mr. Tidbury, who is involved with the Mary Rose trust, and Dame Naomi James, who is a sailor. That is not the case with the Victoria and Albert which has no specialist museum, librarian or other appropriate academic on its board. This legislation would hand over responsibility without making

  745
  sure that the board, unlike the board of trustees of the British museum, is composed of people with relevant expertise in the running of museums.
  As we said on Second Reading, the Government ought to do something about that. We are expecting the trustees to take on responsibilities that they are not in a position to fulfil. Last year's report by the Museums and Galleries Commission said that it was unreasonable,
  "to make trustees responsible for raising money to meet museums' basic needs".
  It also said that if we carried on like that, suitable people would not be willing to serve as trustees. However, that is precisely what the Government are doing and that is the state of affairs that they are perpetuating with the Bill.
  In the past, Governments of both parties accepted that they were responsible for the nation's heritage and for funding museums. All that has changed. The Government now have a policy of saying, "We will give you so much and no more. You find the rest." Trustees work part-time; they are not executives and cannot operate like the board of a public company. They are not there to raise money, so it is a totally unreasonable and misconceived policy to expect them to finance the museums and to raise money for them when those museums are the responsibility of the whole community and society. That is a responsibility that the Government have neglected. They will not accept it, and in the Bill they are legislating for the passing on of such responsibilities.
  The truth is that the Government have no museums strategy. In recent weeks there has been an interesting conference entitled "Museums 2000" which was organised by the Museums Association. Museum experts came from 12 or 14 countries and all paid tribute to the high degree of professionalism and the technical expertise to be found in British museums. They agreed that we continue to lead the world in conservation, curatorial skills, exhibition and professional skills. However, they also said that in terms of policy and in the thinking about the role of museums in our culture, we were way behind the rest of the world.
  Because of the Government, museums are not clear about what is expected of them. They are not sure how they fit into a cultural policy because the Government do not have a cultural policy. They are not sure how they fit into an educational policy. They are not sure what weight that they should give to the tourist and leisure role. They are not sure of the responsibilities of local authorities. Those basic questions about the role of museums in our society have not been answered by the Government and they are certainly not addressed in the Bill.
  In this legislation we are handing over to the national maritime museum—and to others—new responsibilities in a strategy and policy vacuum. What are we preserving? For whom, why and how? What is our attitude towards our heritage? Because the Government have never addressed such questions, they do not have any answers. If one asked the Government, "If these museums did not exist, what sort of museums would you be setting up, for what purpose, where and in what sort of business location, with what relation to broadcasting and to modern means of communication?", one would realise that the Government had no answer. They have never produced anything on paper and apparently they have never done any thinking about policy or strategy or about the role played by museums in our culture.
  746
  That is especially true——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to speak specifically to the Bill. Although I have been interested in what he has been saying, he is going wide of the Bill now.
  Mr. Fisher: It is particularly true of the national maritime museum. We accept that our nautical heritage is even less protected than our heritage on land. When the Minister visited the museum last week he will no doubt have been given its new publication, "Heritage at Sea" which lays out exactly the problems. The legislation—the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973—is inadequate. There is no equivalent to English Heritage for nautical sites.
  We are in a catch-22 situation in that the Merchant Shipping Act encourages and almost demands that all artefacts are sold to pay the fee of 7·5 per cent. that is required from salvors and the Department of Transport. That added cost means that museums cannot afford to buy, and when wrecks and sites are discovered they are broken up rather than held together. The Mary Rose is a notable exception, but it is indeed an exception. Our nautical heritage is being destroyed by the very legislation that was meant to protect it. The document recently published by the national maritime museum shows that we need new legislation, a national inventory of sites and a maritime heritage protection agency.
  Why are the Government not addressing those problems? Why are the Government devolving powers and responsibilities to the national maritime museum in this Bill without addressing what the museum is about and without taking on board the important "Heritage at Sea" document that was published by the staff of the national maritime museum? Why do they not incorporate all those points and give the money to the national maritime museum? Indeed, why do they not also give it the legislative context in which it can get on with the job that we should be giving it in the Bill?
  I fear that the reason the Bill transfers responsibilities to the national maritime museum without providing the money to carry out those responsibilities is that the Government believe in the free market for museums. They are prepared, reluctantly and grudgingly, to maintain the present level of funding, but no more. They say that others, whether independent museums or sponsors, should get on with the job because they will not give them any further help. New thinking and new money from the Government is desperately needed. The Minister should follow the French example, where the Government, with all-party support, have just voted a 12·5 per cent. increase for the arts and museums budget. If the Minister announced a 12·5 per cent. increase in funding for the national maritime museum, he would have all-party support.
  Although we are not prepared to vote against the Bill because we support its general thrust, we feel that the Government are handing over to the national maritime museum problems that can be dealt with only by additional funding.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker,

  747
  underline the need for more general debate on this issue. The massive deterioration of so many of our treasures will cause the most appalling problems. Many buildings are aging, and such mundane matters as wiring, lead piping and so on are putting enormous strains on our heritage.
  I want to ask the Minister a gentle question. Is it the Government's policy that funds should be given as a priority to those areas of our maritime heritage where deterioration has already begun—in fact, the equivalent of rescue archaeology? I suspect that the Government are aware that public interest in our heritage is escalating; it is not simply a question of Huggin hill or Roman remains. The House should take that into account.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Luce: I shall first respond to the short speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) before dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). The hon. Member for Linlithgow rightly referred to the increasing public interest in heritage and, by implication, more widely in the arts. Indeed, there is a relentless upsurge of interest. In the financial year 1988–89 there were 80 million attendances at museums, including local authority museums, private sector museums and national institutions. It is Museums Year, during which it is estimated that there will be 100 million attendances at museums. That is a story not of collapse but of a dramatic expansion of interest. New museums are opening at a rate of one every fortnight. I accept that the Government have a special obligation to our national institutions, museums and galleries, which is why we give more than £150 million of taxpayers' money to them.
  During the past three or four years, I have received representations about the amount of money available—or not available—for the maintenance of our great institutions. I understand the point that it is not easy to find sponsorship for rewiring or for mending roofs. That is why, when I launched the three-year funding policy in November 1987, I said that we would shift greater emphasis and more resources to building and maintenance. Some of the institutions have been operating for a long time, and their maintenance problems have become more acute. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, inflation costs are especially acute for building and maintenance. However, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would sometimes acknowledge that I have responded to the problem and shifted additional resources to deal with it—for example, £48 million this year, a 50 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979–80. Over the period to 1991–92, the figure will be £55 million a year.
  The hon. Gentleman threw out a great many figures. We are discussing the National Maritime Museum Bill. The hon. Gentleman understandably asked about the amount of money for the building programme. This year it will be just under £3·5 million, and I have earmarked £2,770,000 for next year and £3,200,000 for the following year. However, that is only a partial allocation, because for the second and third years I prefer to wait until closer to the time to gauge the real building and maintenance problems. I am holding back a certain sum of money that I can then allocate. In fact, therefore, the total sum for the next three years will be a great deal larger than that shown in the chart.
  Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept the national maritime museum's estimate that its five-year plan to deal with the backlog of repairs and maintenance will cost £19 million? The current grants announced will fall about £2 million short of that figure.
  Mr. Luce: The museum has submitted fresh figures as a result of the corporate strategy that I asked each institution to supply each year, and we are examining those figures. The museum has a five-year strategy, whereas the funding covers a three-year strategy. A considerable sum of money has been allocated for the next three years, and I shall take into account the figures that the museum has submitted, looking five years ahead. I want to ensure that the building is maintained at a decent standard.
  The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he had never visited the museum, but I cannot believe that. I am glad to see him shaking his head—of course he has visited it. Nevertheless, when listening to parts of his speech I wondered whether we were living in slightly different worlds. I do not suggest that everything is perfect with our national institutions; I accept that there are pressures on building and maintenance, especially for the older institutions where the pressures of inflation are more acute. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be truthful and acknowledge that what the museum is achieving is a remarkable story. The 700,000 attendances last year show the general support for the museum and the growing number of people who want to visit it.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the high calibre of the trustees and the cross-section of interests that they represent. They do a marvellous job. I strongly believe in the concept of devolving responsibility to the museums and galleries. Of course, that means more responsibilities for the chairman, trustees and director, and I acknowledge that the policy must be carried out with care. It is right to have less central control—a proposition that the Labour party does not support.
  A seminar on nautical sites was held recently following a report on underwater archaeology. I am interested in the recommendations of the report and I am aware of the concern about the preservation of the sites and the work that is needed on them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not have direct responsibility in that area, but it is something that I think the Government should take seriously. A number of Departments have responsibility, including the Department of Transport.
  Without going outside the terms of reference of the Bill, I hope that I have responded to the main points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I hope also that the House will agree that the national maritime museum is doing a remarkable job, that it is not surprising that attendance is increasing at a remarkable rate, and that the strategy of joint funding between the public and private sectors is the right basis for a successful future. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Atomic Energy Bill [Lords]
As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
8.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have debated this short Bill on Second Reading and in two sittings of the Standing Committee. Therefore, I will keep my opening remarks short. If the House wishes me to do so, I will respond to the points made in the debate.
One purpose of the Bill is to raise the financial limit imposed on British Nuclear Fuels from its present level of £1·5 billion to £2 billion. That will allow the company to complete its current massive investment programme, in particular in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, THORP. The House will know that the company has already secured over £4 billion of contracts associated with this plant, £2·8 billion of which are for overseas customers. It will make BNFL, for instance, the largest single yen earner in the country. Investment is also required to the tune of £500 million to reduce the radioactive liquid discharges over the next four years from their present negligible levels virtually to zero. Recent expenditure has reduced those discharges to less than 5 per cent. of the already low levels in 1979.
The Bill also enables the Health and Safety Executive to recover the costs of nuclear safety research from nuclear site licensees and from applicants for licences. Finally, clause 5 makes necessary changes to the law to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the national convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency. Those changes in particular are welcomed by all hon. Members.
The Opposition, although not voting against this Bill, have tended to speak to it with clothes pegs clasped firmly over their noses. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in particular has clearly found the nuclear industry distasteful. He is in line with his party. As we now know, through its policy review, if it were elected to office, the Labour party would ensure that the nuclear industry is brought to a standstill. The relevant paragraph of that document states:
"In these circumstances, we will not therefore invest in new nuclear stations, nor will we compensate for that by running existing stations beyond their normal life. In practice, this will mean that a majority of existing stations will be decommissioned by the end of the century, and our dependence on nuclear power will therefore progressively diminish".
In the context of a Bill related to the nuclear industry, Conservative Members are bound to ask how a party which will rely for its electricity production almost exclusively on coal can possibly be serious about addressing the problem of carbon dioxide pollution of the atmosphere. What is more, what would happen to electricity consumers if Mr. Scargill's influence were ever reincarnated and had the damaging effect on coal that it had in the past, or if oil prices ever went through the roof again? Perhaps that subject is for another day.
8.33 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: The Minister goes from strength to strength, bringing into an energy debate—whether it be atomic energy or electricity—the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, and seeking to avoid questions about Government legislation by referring to the aforesaid gentleman. I am grateful to the Minister for reading the recent Labour party policy review, although it is not a matter for debate today. Perhaps in the future we can debate in greater detail what the Labour party will do in office—I am pleased to say that the time is not too far away—rather than the present Government's plans. Meanwhile, perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's plans for the nuclear industry.
Although it was considered in only two sittings of the Committee, the Bill has given us an opportunity to debate the future of BNFL and the nuclear power industry as a whole. We have certainly been able to highlight the ever-escalating costs of the nuclear fuel cycle, especially those of decommissioning. Decommissioning costs rose sharply in the recent past and, as the Minister has agreed, they are bound to be unpredictable because we have not been through the process yet and some of it is a long way off. The only prediction that he has been able to make is that decommissioning costs are likely to rise in the future. In Committee I asked the Minister to give a detailed breakdown of the £4·6 million held by BNFL for decommissioning its plant. He said that he could not respond immediately but would see whether he could obtain more information. Has he done that? BNFL has only two reactors—the remainder consists of ponds and chemical plants.
Again in Committee, during the discussion on new clause 1, I referred to the moneys set aside by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board for decommissioning nuclear plant. We are led to believe that the CEGB and the SSEB have about £4·2 billion for that, but according to a parliamentary answer to a question by the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) the CEGB has only £568 billion for decommissioning costs. How much is held by the SSEB for decommissioning costs? Is the balance the cost of reprocessing and the cost of nuclear waste management disposal? It is a substantial amount.
The Minister said that a Labour Government would operate schedule 12 of the Electricity Bill if the time scale for decommissioning nuclear reactors is reduced in future. The Minister knows that schedule 12 covers more than decommissioning. It allows for grants for the storage and reprocessing of nuclear fuel and for the treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive waste. To provide grants for those functions would effectively be to take over the business of BNFL when the Government are allowing the industry to renegotiate its cost-plus contracts. That would be underwriting from the public purse if anything went wrong.
The industry does not have a good record in estimating costs. The Minister has said that costs are bound to be unpredictable. It would be wrong to commit a future Labour Government to such expenditure. Whoever invests in national nuclear power and the Scottish nuclear industry should accept its financial liabilities. We believe that the Government intend to float the nuclear industry. The liabilities should be accepted by those who are to pay.
752
We should make it clear that we will not bale out the privatised nuclear power industry should it want money in future for its day-to-day business.
The Minister spoke about what the Labour party would do in government, but what are the Government's current plans? They appear to be running headlong towards a new nuclear power programme. On 4 May in committee I asked the Minister whether we were to have a larger family of PWRs than originally intended. He failed to reply to that question, and I assume that it slipped his mind. What is the thinking in Government circles? Is it in favour of a massive increase in the PWR programme on the basis that that will mitigte against the greenhouse effect? The Government seem to be out of touch with reality regarding nuclear fuel. An example of that was the Minister's description of the nuclear waste reprocessing industry as an "environmentally pure" industry. I have never heard anyone who works full-time in that industry use such a phrase.
Greenhouse gases are a new event for the Government and they are using them as an excuse to wield their prejudice against the British coal mining industry. They are not, however, prejudiced against coal mining elsewhere in the world, as I understand that they are encouraging our ever-increasing imports of coal. To describe the reprocessing industry as "environmentally pure" is a giant leap away from the opinion that has been held by most people and by that very industry.
At the Prime Minister's seminar on 26 April, Mr. Currie of the energy technology support unit presented a paper in which he used the quaint phrase
"for the purposes of this presentation",
and then went on to make assumptions about the future based on the use of nuclear power to provide 50 per cent. of baseload electricity. To generate that amount, 24 PWRs would have to be constructed by the year 2020. The Minister concluded by quoting what the Labour party policy review says about the nuclear industry, but I challenge him to answer the question that I posed in Committee. What is the Government's position in relation to the nuclear industry in the future? Does he accept what the civil servants said at the Prime Minister's seminar—that to generate 50 per cent. of baseload electricity would require the construction of 24 PWRs by the year 2020? What do the Conservatives think about the future of the nuclear industry? The Minister knows full well what the Labour party thinks. It is extraordinary that even the Government could contemplate such a massive increase in nuclear capacity, even if it were possible.
As I said in Committee, the nuclear industry is under siege, with its economic and environmental excesses being exposed to a nation which increasingly does not share the Government's complacency about our nuclear future. The astronomic and rising costs of the nuclear fuel cycle have been put on record—from the massive capital cost through to the cost of reprocessing and the unknown but undoubtedly enormous cost of decommissioning and waste disposal.
The nuclear industry recognises that it cannot build on greenfield sites. Its application for four new PWRs are on existing nuclear reactor sites. It now plans to dispose of its waste products in deep disposal sites at Sellafield and Dounreay—existing nuclear sites. Since we have discussed this in Committee, I have heard that those at Dounreay are sceptical of taking on the liability of deep disposal. It may be that the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive

753
—Nirex—will be forced to use one site alone in Great Britain which is prepared to accept the legacy of liability represented by nuclear waste.
How many Conservative Members will volunteer to have a PWR in their constituency if the Government go ahead with their nuclear madness? Is the Minister prepared to have a PWR in his backyard, as he seems to want to commit the Government to further nuclear reactors in the future? Alternatively, are we to assume that we shall run out of seaside sites for nuclear reactors? In years to come, will such nuclear reactors take over fossil-fuel power stations? Does the Minister believe that PWRs will be built in constituencies such as that held by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), which has a number of fossil-fuel power stations currently under threat? Will the new families of PWRs be built in such areas? The Government are in a state of confusion about the nuclear power industry. Perhaps the Minister will explain what their plans are. How big a tab will present and future taxpayers have to pick up for this costly—both environmentally and in money terms—industry?
We accept most of the Bill. We did not oppose it in Committee or on Second Reading, and we do not intend to oppose it today. Nevertheless, if the Government go ahead with the anticipated large-scale development of PWRs in the mistaken belief that that is the answer to the problem of greenhouse gases, exactly where will that development take place and in whose constituency? Who will be asked to accept the extension of the nuclear industry? The Opposition—and, I am sure, millions of other people—would like to know the answers.
8.46 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I was not a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill, but I read the record of its proceedings today, and I found them absorbing. I am decisively anti-nuclear, and I am in tune with the majority of our population. The British people do not want any more nuclear power stations; and, frankly, they do not want to see any more money squandered on the industry.
The first clause of the Bill will increase the borrowing capabilities of BNFL from £1·5 billion to £2 billion. Therefore, the industry will be able to avail itself of an additional £500 million of public funds. In common with the public, I believe that that is throwing good money after bad, because the record of that industry inspires no confidence. BNFL has a history of leaks at Windscale, now Sellafield, and a history of escalating costs. One need only study its accounts for last year to see that the cost of reprocessing Magnox fuel increased by 27 per cent. in one year, or by 35 per cent. in real terms in the past two years.
Poor Sellafield may well feel that its days are numbered because the technology of reprocessing is now unnecessary. I noticed that, in Committee, Conservative Members asked why it was necessary to reprocess nuclear waste. The old justification was that we needed uranium and plutonium, but then we were faced with the embarrassment of the waste. We no longer need uranium, as it is cheap to buy on the world market and there are abundant reserves of it all over the world. We do not need the
754
plutonium, especially as the Government are now winding down their fast breeder reactor programme, about which I am delighted.
What we are talking about is the long-term death of the nuclear industry. We do not need the uranium or the plutonium, nor do we need the waste. The technology of reprocessing merely multiplies the volume of waste by a factor of 100. It creates and adds to the embarrassment and it is expensive to store and dispose of such waste.
It is clear from the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the PWRs that the Government are intent on building that their wastes will not be reprocessed. We shall do as the United States has always done, and store wastes without reprocessing. It is possible to use dry storage for PWRs and AGRs. That involves much cheaper technology than other methods of storing, and it is environmentally much more acceptable than reprocessing.
Where does that leave Sellafield and the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? It is at THORP that the big expansion at the Sellafield plant lies. THORP will be used to reprocess oxide fuel. It seems that too much money has been spent there already. Contracts have been signed that may be expensive to cancel. The costs of THORP will be £1·5 billion, five times the original estimate. The justification for it is that there are orders in the pipeline for £4 billion-worth of waste to be reprocessed over the next 10 years.
The Minister appeared to be proud in Committee that 70 per cent. of the orders are from overseas. Should we be proud that we are importing nuclear wastes? Surely that comes within the same category as the importation of toxic wastes. It is nothing to be proud of. Most of the British people would prefer not to import massive quantities of toxic wastes for landfill and for incineration, and the same goes for nuclear waste. They do not want to see Britain becoming the nuclear dustbin of the world, but that is what THORP is all about. It is only that activity that makes it financially viable.
What will happen to the wastes from Japan and elsewhere after they have been reprocessed at THORP? What happens to the plutonium and, most especially, the long-lived radioactive wastes, the caesium 137 and the strontium 90? Will they be sent back to Japan and elsewhere? Will that happen in five years, 10 years, or in the indefinite future? The British people are fed up with waste importation.
I am disappointed that the Government could not agree that the Bill should be amended so that it became the duty of any private or public company holding or operating nuclear installations to publish annually the current estimated cost of decommissioning such installations. Decommissioning is a critically important cost. Decommissioning nuclear installations could be much more expensive than constructing them. It is fair to ask for annual estimates of decommissioning costs. The facts should be available to the British public. During consideration of the Electricity Bill, we heard calls for transparency in the costs of nuclear power. We want the costs of decommissioning to be transparent. The costs should appear in the accounts of British Nuclear Fuels plc every year and in those of the Central Electricity Generating Board. There should be a detailed explanation of the technology and detailed estimates of the costs.
It is revealing that the nuclear industry used to think that, when nuclear plants became clapped out, they could be disposed of at sea. That view is incredible, now that we

755
know more about nuclear wastes and radiation. At one time, however, the nuclear industry thought that clapped-out reactors and plant at Sellafield, for example, that came to the end of their life could be disposed of at sea. I am glad that we have moved on slightly since then. However, the fact remains that we need accurate estimates of decommissioning costs, and these should be revised annually.
We know that the decommissioning of nuclear power stations is to be deferred to stage 3, to 100 years hence. What if it is possible technically to decommission them within 20 to 30 years? Once it is technically feasable to decommission nuclear installations at the end of their life, they should be restored to green sites as soon as it is technically feasible to do so. That means that the 2 per cent. discount rate becomes much less relevant. The cost of decommissioning multiplies by a factor of two, three or four. We should have reasonable estimates of the costs and they should he prepared annually. The technology and the estimates should be in line with international experience.
8.55 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: It appears that the Minister is not living in the real world. He is such a nice chap outside the Chamber, but when he speaks from the Dispatch Box he is as vicious as I do not know what. He becomes really nasty when he talks about nuclear power.
The Minister has spoken about the Labour party's policy. Ministers take every opportunity to attack the Labour party. We are approaching the European elections and the Minister is probably electioneering on behalf of Conservative candidates. The Labour party has never changed its policy on nuclear energy—the Minister appears to be surprised. It seems that he does not do his homework. He should not attack the Labour party for its nuclear policy when its spokesmen are really reiterating what they have said in the past.
Mr. Michael Spicer: That is an extraordinary comment. I am prompted to ask the hon. Gentleman how it was that, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy, he launched a massive nuclear building programme. He was a member of the Labour party, and I believe that he still is. The same party is committed now to destroying the programme which he almost invented.
Mr. Haynes: An individual is entitled to express his own opinion. I am talking about Labour party policy on nuclear energy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may have done what the Minister suggests, but I stand in the Chamber as a Labour Member who believes in the Labour party's policy on nuclear energy. The Minister should come off it and get his facts right before he makes such stupid remarks from the Government Dispatch Box. Mind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he makes one or two such remarks on these matters and on others. I know that, as I served as a member of the Committees that considered the Electricity Bill and the Bill that is before us.
The Minister has made other stupid comments. This is really a cover-up. The Secretary of State for Energy and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy often refer to the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. That really is rubbish. I have some news for the Minister. The president of the Union of Democratic
756
Mineworkers has applied to join the Labour party. I hope that the Minister has taken that on board and can understand the feelings about nuclear energy which are prevalent in Nottinghamshire. I am convinced that those feelings are related to the Government's nuclear policy. People are reacting against it. The Minister can come off it and stop referring to the president of the NUM across the Dispatch Box.
In his argument tonight and in Committee upstairs, the Minister has always argued that the provision of fossil fuel for the electricity industry is more expensive than nuclear energy. What a load of rubbish. That is another cover-up. We know that the cost of nuclear power will be way above the cost of fossil fuels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was right to refer to the cost of decommissioning. That cost is in addition to the provision of PWRS. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) suggested that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) would not have a nuclear power station in her constituency. I will tell the Minister why she would not have one. She would not use the argument that she was against nuclear power. Instead, she would claim that Derbyshire was a nuclear-free zone. She is right; Derbyshire is a nuclear-free zone.
Recently, there were county council elections in Derbyshire and the Labour party took more seats in Derbyshire even though there is a great deal of expenditure on the people, especially on people in need. Of course, there is also expenditure on advertising the fact that Derbyshire is a nuclear-free zone.
In Committee on the Electricity Bill and on the Atomic Energy Bill, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. T. Skeet) was thrashing the issue. He wanted to make more progress. He did not want four PWRs as planned; he wanted the eight which were decided in the first place.
Mr. Barron: Where is the hon. Member now ?
Mr. Haynes: He is not in the Chamber tonight. He has a problem: I read in the press over the weekend that his constituency party has decided to ditch him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. A Third Reading debate is not an easy debate. The hon. Gentleman is extremely experienced and he knows that the debate must relate to what is in the Bill. The matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised now are not in the Bill.
Mr. Haynes: I was about to refer to a PWR being situated in Bedfordshire, North. The hon. Member for Bedforshire, North was pushing for PWRs in Committee, but he made it clear that he did not want one in his constituency.
When we drive down the motorway, we can all see the notices which have been painted on the bridges—all the notices are illegal—stating, "We don't want nuclear dumping here." However, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North was pushing like mad in Committee for PWRs, nuclear power, and all the blooming rest of it. However, it seems that he is going to be dumped for pushing for those projects. He has had his come-uppance. He may stand as an independent, but we shall see.
The argument is all about cost. People write to me and attend my surgeries because they are concerned about the Government's nuclear energy programme, particularly

757
their new PWRs. Where will those PWRs go? We do not want one in Ashfield. I can tell the Minister, on my constituents' behalf, "We ain't gonna have one." That is something else that he can put in his pipe and smoke—although he does not smoke a pipe. The people are making themselves heard and I am speaking on their behalf.
Many Conservative Members push like mad for nuclear power and the new PWRs. They support them in the Division Lobbies. However, they do not want them in their own back gardens. It is rather like the planning applications to which the Secretary of State for the Environment says, "Not in my back garden, but they can be in someone else's." I hope that the Minister gets the message. There is no doubt that the Government will get their Bill, but we shall continue to fight it.
The Minister never takes any notice when I am talking to him. He is always doodling. When I was addressing the Minister in a very important debate on mining subsidence recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, "He's doodling." He was not listening to me.
Mr. Michael Spicer: I am making notes on the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Haynes: If the hon. Gentleman is making notes, that is different. I hope that he will say something that I can enjoy and really take on board, and which I can take back to my constituents.
I repeat: when it comes to the next general election, the Minister will get a shock. Nuclear energy policy will change when my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are on the Government Benches and when Conservative Members are in opposition.
9.5 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked about repatriation of nuclear waste. As the hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on such matters, he should know that, since 1976, all contracts with foreign countries incorporate options for the repatriation of nuclear waste arising out of reprocessing. The Government's intention is that those options will be exercised, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I made one or two notes on the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who accused me of not living in the real world because I do not agree with his view that Labour party policy on the nuclear industry has been consistent. The hon. Gentleman's party, which now wishes to destroy the nuclear industry, is the same party that spawned the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). At the time in question, the then right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was not just any member of the Labour party and entitled to hold offbeat views on nuclear energy, such as those that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends expressed recently; he was the Secretary of State for Energy. In that capacity, he launched a number of nuclear power stations.
Some of them have not worked as well as he imagined, whereas all those launched during the period of office of the present Government show every sign of doing so. Any shortcomings should not all be laid at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, he formulated present nuclear policy and the power stations associated with it.
758
I say to the hon. Member for Ashfield something that he often says to me: "Come off it." It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there has not been something of a volte-face by the Labour party. It is extraordinary that, if Labour ever return to government—which most people in this country who think about such matters hope will never happen—they will be dedicated to the destruction of the nuclear power industry.
The Labour party's inconsistency is not confined to the past. I have an invitation to a national conference entitled "Energy for the Future", sponsored by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, at which the speakers making the case for the fast reactor will include the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There is inconsistency not only between the Opposition's present policies and those to which they have devoted themselves when in government, but within their own ranks. When it suits them, Members of Parliament representing interests that are served well by the nuclear industry appear at conferences supporting its future, while the mainstream element of the Labour party now apparently wishes to ditch its past policies. It is entirely wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any consistency with past policies.
Mr. Haynes: Smile.
Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman asks me to smile, but the future of the nuclear industry is a serious matter.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked me what the Government's policy was on the future of the industry. He claimed that he now had a firm policy, and suggested that the Government did not. The Government's position has been made clear several times: we will ensure through the non-fossil fuel obligation that the nuclear industry is maintained at about its present capacity, which means building four pressurised water reactors to replace the aging Magnoxes.
Mr. Barron: Is the Minister contradicting the paper presented to the seminar held by the Prime Minister on 26 April? That paper, introduced by Mr. Ken Currie of the energy technology support unit, dealt with the options for mitigating the greenhouse effect and suggested the physical possibility of building 24 new PWRs by the year 2020. Is the Minister saying that the paper was wrong, and that the four PWRs that are public knowledge are the only ones that were in the Government's mind either before or after the seminar?
Mr. Spicer: The papers presented at the seminar contained the views of those who presented them. The reason why there is such a thing as collective responsibility—the reason why there are Cabinets, and why policy becomes policy only when Ministers have announced it to Parliament as such—is that discussion must take place, in some cases on the basis of hypothetical material in papers. That particular paper gave the views and the prognosis of one individual, which is all that it claimed to do.
Discussion takes place both inside and outside Government about all sorts of possible scenarios, but the Government's policy is absolutely clear: we need four PWRs if we are to maintain our present nuclear capacity. What is not clear is the Opposition's policy on the environment. They spend a great deal of time talking about the environment, but things are different when it comes to hard practical reality.

759
Let us assume that what is meant by "impingement" on the environment is the effect of, for instance, carbon dioxide emissions on the atmosphere. The Opposition must explain how they would satisfy what is expected, according to every assumption that I have come across, to be a rising demand for electricity——
Mr. Alan W. Williams rose——
Mr. Spicer: May I just finish this point? There will be a rising demand for electricity, even if conservation measures are taken into account. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say. How are the Opposition to satisfy that rising demand with what is essentially a coal-based power station system? Everyone knows that most emissions of CO2 are from coal-fired power stations. How on earth will the Opposition be able to develop an honest policy toward the environment if they maintain their anti-nuclear stance?
Mr. Williams: I am pleased that the Minister corrected himself in mid-paragraph when 1 rose to intervene. I thought that he made it abundantly clear during the proceedings on the Electricity Bill that the Bill said nothing about the environment and conservation, or about environmental pollution. The fact is that four pressurised water reactor power stations would make a very small contribution to environmental protection. If the money that is to be spent on their construction were to be invested in energy conservation, it would make a far greater contribution to environmental protection. It is baffling that the Government and the Minister should be deaf to the pleas of so many people to take an interest in conservation. They will have to take it seriously at some stage.
Mr. Spicer: Everything associated with the Electricity Bill relates to the environment. If one thinks through what the electricity industry does to the environment, it has—[Interruption.] I see that you are growing a little restless, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been asked specifically about the environment and I ought to deal with it. The future of the nuclear industry is bound up with the question of whether additional money is to be given to British Nuclear Fuels, plc. One constraint on the future of the nuclear industry, and therefore on the money that is given to it, might be the environment. That is why I was briefly addressing the question, and I hope that I shall be permitted to answer the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I should be obliged if all hon. Members, whether speaking from the Back Benches or the Front Benches, would deal only with the Bill which is having its Third Reading.
Mr. Spicer: Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen about the effect of the nuclear industry on the environment. Clause 1, in particular, deals with the provision of additional money for the industry. That ought to be welcomed by hon. Members. British Nuclear Fuels plc will be making major new investments in cleaning up the pollution caused by the industry. The hon. Gentleman says that it is untrue for the Government to argue that the nuclear industry will benefit the environment. The Electricity Bill requires all companies to have regard to environmental questions. It does not require them to enhance the beauty of the landscape.
760
Unlike the water industry, it is not that kind of industry. However the Electricity Bill and this Bill will ensure that the industry has a multiplicity of sources of supply, in addition to coal.
The fact that the industry pollutes the environment by emitting SO2and CO2 is directly addressed in the Bill. The Opposition grumble about the Bill and make speeches against the use of nuclear power. An industry that was exclusively dependent upon coal would pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere, even allowing for conservation procedures. We consider that the Opposition are hypocritical to adopt that posture when a Bill such as this will provide additional finance for the nuclear industry to protect the environment.
We have never denied that coal will play an essential part in the future, but when considering whether more money should be allowed for investment at BNFL, we think it is essential that nuclear power should be a component of electricity generation. We believe that fervently for many reasons, not the least of which is that which the Opposition always try to cram down our throats—improving the environment.
9.19 pm
Mr. Barron rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
Mr. Barron: Yes.
I asked the Minister more than the one question, which he avoided in his attempted answer. I asked about the breakdown of decommissioning costs in the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. If he does not have those figures, I am quite prepared to have them by letter.
Mr. Spicer: I apologise for not giving an answer on the BNFL breakdown, but perhaps I can help by saying that the £4·6 billion covers all the BNFL sites and includes the reactors at Calderhall and Chapel Cross. BNFL estimates that it will cost about £750 million to decommission those reactors—there are four at each site. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some of the information he wants.
Mr. Barron: It goes some way towards an answer. We shall have to go into more detail about the decommissioning costs of each generator, but I am grateful for the information.
We support the Bill. We said at the outset in the debate on the limitation on borrowing powers that we wanted to make specific points about this industry and its expenditure. The growth of nuclear reprocessing costs has been quite astounding. The Government have been very honest in their defence of reprocessing and the disposal of nuclear waste. I am sure that the Minister's phrase about it being an environmentally pure industry will go down for posterity. I know few people who will defend that position.
The Minister went on at some length about the Labour party's stance. Would he accept a PWR in his constituency? Would his constituents accept a waste disposal facility? We have yet to hear where the Government, who seem to be in favour of the expansion of the nuclear industry, will site these reactors. I am prepared to give way to the Minister if he will tell me whether his constituents are prepared to provide an inland site for a PWR. I asked that question throughout the Committee

761
stage and it was unanswered then just as it is unanswered now. Everybody knows it is not environmentally pure. Rather, it is a legacy for future generations.
We shall support the Bill. We are pleased about the international convention which has been brought about because of the accident at Chernobyl. This and any future Government will help if such a disaster should ever befall the earth again.
While we support the Bill, we cannot support this industry, which the Minister believes should be a component of our electricity generation. It is too expensive in terms of the economics of electricity generation, the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle and the cost of the legacy of nuclear waste for future generations.
We support the Bill but we do not support the Government's rush to expand a nuclear power industry that has failed the British people and the people of the world during the last 30 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland)
9.24 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.
The order is the latest in a series of such orders, the last of which was passed in 1986. Their main purpose is to adjust, as necessary, certain limits imposed by statute on financial operations and to deal with other routine finance matters, including the simplification and rationalisation of accounting procedures. Those are described in the explanatory memorandum. The only article to which I need draw the attention of the House in particular is article 3, which will enable a capital surplus of some £365 million in the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund to be used to write off some of the loans to be made over the years to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
The surplus came about because the 1986 Financial Provisions Order abolished a number of obsolete funds and transferred their assets to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. Savings on interests charges on loans written off will release resources of some £50 million a year for alternative and more productive public expenditure. I therefore commend the order to the House.
9.26 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: The House will be pleased that I do not intend to speak at length. I thank the Minister of State for taking us so quickly through the provisions of the latest draft order.
The Minister referred to the most recent draft order, that of 1986. My research shows that the one before that was in 1984. The only Member of the 1984 Parliament and certainly the 1986 Parliament who fully understood the orders, with the exception of the Minister who initiated and replied to the debate, was the right hon. Enoch Powell. He certainly went through the draft orders meticulously and, as usual, with a fine-toothed comb, and found something useful to say about them. I wish that I had that insight and strength of character to say that I had done the same. Unfortunately, the truth is that I have read through the order and cannot find a great deal to say about it.
The order does not deal with the appropriation of cash for public services in Northern Ireland, a point that the Minister did not mention, although his two predecessors did so in previous debates. I regret that, because, had the order dealt with the appropriate of cash, the scope for the debate would have been far wider and we would have been able to call into question the global sums of public expenditure in Northern Ireland and the allocation of those sums between the various services in the Province.
I notice that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is getting a little agitated as she sees the time moving on. I presume that she has her eye on a Bill further down the Order Paper.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am not remotely agitated.
Mr. Marshall: We might disagree about the verb, but I feel that the hon. Lady wishes to discuss a Bill further down the Order Paper.

763
It is perhaps regrettable that the order does not deal with appropriation, as it would have provided the opportunity to discuss Government policy on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that on many previous occasions I have given the Government credit for the level of public expenditure in the Province. Nevertheless, I repeat that, although the present levels of public expenditure are commendable, in view of the economic and social difficulties and problems, there is still a strong case for even greater increased levels of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is a point we can pursue in the next Appropriation Order debate.
I recognise that the Government need the order to be passed quickly. Perhaps that is why it was laid before the House last week and is being discussed today. If one reads in detail the explanatory memorandum, one sees that the Northern Ireland Estimates for this year were passed on the assumption that the draft order would come into effect in June. If the Government fail to meet that deadline—it is not my intention to engineer that—public expenditure in Northern Ireland will be reduced by £1 million per week, or nearly £5 million per month, or £60 million per year. That would affect the allocation of public expenditure in the North of Ireland. If the order is not passed and the money is not available, it will affect many expenditure programmes, including that of the Housing Executive, as well as expenditure on education and health. It would also affect the Government's privatisation policies in the North of Ireland.
I should like to say a few words about Shorts, a subject I raised with the Minister during Question Time last week. The Minister knows that my party's view remains that the company should continue to be publicly owned. However, I recognise that that battle has now been lost. It is essential to secure and expedite the company's future. We have to have decisions quickly. We all know that the Government have only two bids to consider. The first bid is from Bombardier—I apologise to the company for mispronouncing its name last week—and the second is from GEC-Fokker. It should not take a great deal of time to choose between them. It seems to me and to many other hon. Members that the top management at Shorts has already made a decision and would welcome a takeover by Bombardier. I assume that the recently announced reorganisation of the operational divisions of Shorts is a preliminary step towards that end.
Whatever the truth may be, we have to end quickly the uncertainty over the future of Shorts. That requires a speedy decision by the Government. I press the Minister again to give an assurance that the Government will make their view known within the next two weeks.
Having said that, without further ado I accept the order and commend it to the House.
9.34 pm
Rev. Martyn Smyth: I wish to put one or two points on the record. I notice that the order was issued on Wednesday when in Northern Ireland we had a slight local distraction which continued on Thursday and Friday. Therefore, I join the hon. Member for Leicester South (Mr. Marshall) in his tribute to my colleague of past days, the right hon. Enoch Powell. He is a master of figures and he would have studied in detail the draft order.
It has been said that there will be a shortage of funds for education, but education is not mentioned in the order.
764
Reference is made to funds being given to the Housing Executive, thereby enabling funds to be released for other work. Will those other funds be for housing? Will people who have been trying for months to obtain grants—especially older people who have been trying to modernise their homes—but have been delayed by insufficient funds be given grants, or will they be left waiting because tenders will be out of date by the time funds are made available to help them? Will the funds that are released be retained by the Housing Executive, or will they be given to another Department?
Article 8 makes a change, and is a sweetener to attract Northern Ireland Members, by bringing Northern Ireland into line with current British practice. It provides that the Department of Finance and Personnel, unlike the previous mandatory provisions, may direct departments when to prepare trading accounts. How often will such accounts be prepared?
It is part of the task of hon. Members to monitor supply and expenditure. It has been exceedingly difficult to monitor certain Departments in Northern Ireland, in which expenditure has been rampant over the years. Surely it would have been better to bring Britain in line with practice in Northern Ireland so that there would not be a long lead time before the accounts are published of the various commercial, trading and manufacturing services that Departments might operate. The House should have had such monitoring machinery earlier, but it is being offered now, perhaps to save on administrative costs and perhaps, in the long run, to cover the other losses of millions of pounds that we have been unable to monitor.
This is not an appropriation debate, so we cannot probe funds more carefully, but do the new regulations providing loans for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service mean that the Government have decided not to go ahead with privatisation of the NIES, which would please many people in Northern Ireland? Does it mean that the Government have discussed a new link between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or does it mean that the Government are prepared to go ahead with the Scottish link, which would keep the United Kingdom and the EEC together for the good of our people?
9.38 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: Having had the opportunity to speak earlier this evening, I shall intervene only briefly.
I should like to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) about the funds that will be available to the Housing Executive. Will the Housing Executive be able to make the grants that many people in North Down have been asking for and carry out vital repairs on its estates?
I hope that, before long, the people of Northern Ireland, not English Ministers in Westminster, will be able to decide financial provision, because Stormont is where such matters should be dealt with.
9.39 pm
Mr. Ian Stewart: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I think that many of us would welcome progress towards devolution of responsibility to elected representatives in Northern Ireland, and. I endorse what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has said.

765
The hon. Members for North Down and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made specific points about the Housing Executive. The funds released for public expenditure purposes in general by article 3 are not hypothecated in housing, but they influence the amount made available over all the programmes in the current financial year. The resources used to write off the Housing Executive loans are not funds which arose from housing but are the result of closing a number of obsolete accounts containing money which went into them for various reasons. There is no particular case for applying them to housing. Nevertheless, there are housing needs, and that is why we have sustained a substantial programme in this area of public expenditure. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, the order will increase the funds available for public expenditure by about £1 million per week, and that will continue throughout the current financial year and in the future. This has enabled us in the last annual public expenditure round to see higher public expenditure figures than we would otherwise have had.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked about article 8 and how often discretion would be used by the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of formal trading accounts. For example, there are at present only three trading accounts in respect of services operated by the Department of Agriculture—a fish farm, a pig testing station and the forest service. Of those, only the forest service is a true trading activity which would require formal trading accounts. When the order is implemented, the Department will probably dispense with the need for trading accounts for the other services. It will be a matter of using discretion, but it should enable quite a lot of rather pointless bureaucratic exercises to end.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's answer. I was thinking also of the development of privatisation and in-house trading within, for example, the Department of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is going rather wider than the matter in hand. I will let him know whether I have any further comments. I should not like him to think that these decisions have been taken in advance because they have not, but it is sensible to have this measure available and to see when it can properly be applied. It may therefore be a considerable time before any sensible answer to the hon Gentleman's question is available.
766
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked me whether article 6 had any implications for privatisation of electricity or the connector link. It has no implications one way or the other. It is designed simply to ensure that any Government loan to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service is automatically secured on the assets and revenue of the service without having to go to the bother of constructing a special legal mortgage or other document. It should simplify the financial arrangements for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the Government agency making the loan.
It would not be right to comment at this stage on Shorts, when the bids are being carefully assessed, but I assure the hon. Member for Leicester, South that it is not the Government's intention to delay that process longer than necessary to deal with the matter properly, as he would wish.
On the general scope of the debate, I am sorry that I never had the opportunity to take part in one when Mr. Enoch Powell was still in the House, but I know of his formidable debating skills from my time as a Treasury Minister and I have no doubt that he would have found all sorts of ins and outs in the document before us. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South recognises, however, the order does not go into specific matters of appropriation, for the simple reason that it is concerned largely with technicalities. There are other occasions on which we can debate appropriation and public expenditure generally. If the normal pattern is followed—I have no reason to think that it will not be—we shall have another appropriation order debate before too long when we can look into more general matters of public expenditure.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and for the support given to the order, which I hope that the House will now pass.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Human Organ Transplants Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
9.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Organ Transplants Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the expenses of any authority exercising functions under that Act.
Clause 2(4) of the Bill contains the provision that authorises payment out of moneys provided by Parliament. The financial effects of the Bill will be limited to the expenses of running the authority. The sum involved is very small £20,000 per annum—which is considered the maximum total cost likely to be incurred by members of the authority in carrying out their functions under the Act. Expenses of the authority will cover such items as claims by members for travel, subsistence, overnight accommodation and meeting postage and telephone costs. Also, some minor items of office equipment, including stationery and computer software, may have to be made available to members of the authority.
We envisage that members of the authority will wish to meet frequently, following the Bill's enactment, to familiarise themselves with the handling of referrals and adopt a common approach. In time, we expect members to carry out their functions mainly by post and telephone with occasional meetings to review progress. The final decision about such arrangements, however, will rest with the chairman and members of the authority. We also expect that the authority will wish to maintain a record of cases referred to members. Some dedicated computer equipment will be provided to the authority for this purpose. This is a modest sum for a specifically limited purpose and I commend the resolution to the House.
9.48 pm
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: It seems that the money resolution, which my hon. Friend assures us is only for a small sum, is remarkably open-ended. It relates to an unspecified authority which is to be set up by as yet unpublished regulations. My hon. Friend talked about members of the authority and that is the first time that I have heard him make reference to a membership of the authority, for there is nothing in the Bill that refers to members of the authority. That membership was not referred to on Second Reading. What sort of authority will we be setting up? What do we want that authority to do? From Second Reading, we know from my hon. Friend that the policing of this Bill is central to its effectiveness, and that therefore how the Bill is to be policed must be spelt out in detail at some stage in the Bill's progress through Standing Committee, through the final stages in this House and in the other place.
We also know from Second Reading that there will be a register. Presumably it will either be held centrally, with copies in all the hospitals that are equipped to carry out transplant operations or, alternatively, a register will be held in each hospital that is capable of carrying out such operations. I am guessing at the details, but operations involving the transplant or removal of organs will be
768
detailed in the register. Presumably it will spell out who performed the operation, who gave the organ and to whom it has been given.
However, that still leaves me wondering whether we shall be any the wiser about whether the organ has been obtained legally or illegally. What mechanism can my hon. Friend suggest to guarantee that organs will be donated legally? I am also left wondering whether a specific duty to maintain the accuracy of the register will be imposed on hospitals that perform transplant operations. If such a duty is to be imposed, what penalty will be incurred by a hospital where the register is found to be neither up to date or accurate?
My hon. Friend the Minister has told the House that he estimates that £20,000 will be required to police the Bill. However, he told the Standing Committee with great honesty that the size of the Bill's task is unknown. The Government do not know how many commercial sales of kidneys have taken place at any stage during the past decade. In those circumstances we do not know whether we are talking about a very small number of such sales or whether they are common practice. To some extent my hon. Friend is guessing both about the Bill's task and about how he will police a system which, at the moment, appears to be outside anybody's control.
I say this with the greatest respect—I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend—but he is estimating, or at least his advisers are telling him, that for £20,000 he can set up an authority, cover its travelling costs, fund the bureaucracy that such an authority may need and hold a register, whether centrally or in the hospitals. He believes that he can do all that for £20,000, but we all know that 1 he price of a good secretary is at least half that sum. I suggest that he will be hard pressed to introduce a workable scheme for that very small sum.
I began by saying that this money resolution is open-ended and I think it is probably better that way. Perhaps at this stage, before he has brought forward regulations and spelt out the details of the authority, my hon. Friend might be wiser not to state the figure that he thinks will be required. I have an uneasy feeling that he might find that he has considerably under-estimated.
9.53 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Although I am addressing my remarks strictly to the money resolution, I regret and feel sad that the Second Reading of the Bill was not taken on the Floor of the House. In principle, the Bill has universal support in the House and I cannot believe that any harm would have been done by allowing those of us who have strong feelings on certain aspects of the Bill an opportunity to debate it in full on the Floor of the House. Whatever the arguments—there certainly are some—for curtailing amendments which merely prolong discussion of the Bill, I cannot see any arguments against taking Second Reading on the Floor of the House, and I am sorry that that was not done.
Before you call me to order, Mr. Speaker, I will return to the money resolution. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) I doubt very much, although for different reasons, whether what is proposed could be carried out entirely within the modest sum that my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested. If I were a member of the authority concerned, faced with a rule a s vague as that in clause 5, I should spend a great deal of

769
time and incur a great deal of expenditure simply attending meetings to decide what on earth the rule meant and where the remit of the authority began and ended.
Clause 5 states:
"In this Act 'organ' means any part of a human body consisting of a structured arrangement of tissues which, if wholly removed, cannot be replicated by the body."
At first sight, that seems quite clear, but at what point is it a "structured arrangements of tissues"? Presumably, tissue itself is not included because that can be replicated, at least by a live body. Let us suppose that a brain is removed for the use of part of it. Will that be covered by the Bill or, will it not be covered because the entire organ is not being used? I envisage a great deal of lawyers' time being spent, as well as a great deal more than the £20,000 allocated, in trying to sort out exactly what the Bill means. For instance, when referring to the human body, do we mean both pre-birth and post-birth human bodies, or only one or the other?
My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the concern about the use of foetal tissue. Currently, it is only the tissue that is used, and presumably my hon. Friend believes that that does not have to be dealt with at quite the speed that he has had to deal with the sale of organs. However, as there are not even regulations for the definite separation of procurement and use of foetal tissue, what is to prevent the sudden discovery that such tissue is being sold? A year ago we would have said that we could not even contemplate the sale of organs, certainly not in this country, but we have since learnt to the contrary. If we also learn to the contrary that tissue, foetal parts or organs are being sold, will that be covered by the Bill, or will the authority have to discuss at great length whether it is within its remit to act under the Bill? What exactly does the Bill cover?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not delve too deeply into the merits of the Bill, important though it is, because the Bill has had a Second Reading. There will be opportunities on Report to deal with the matters that she is now raising. The money resolution is narrow.
Miss Widdecombe: I have a feeling that the Report stage will be even narrower if it is treated in the same way as Second Reading. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate that there are perfectly good reasons, which I do not dispute, for hurrying through the Bill. I have related my remarks to the fact that we have been told that the authority is to operate at a total cost of £20,000. The Bill is vague and leaves many questions unanswered. Developments during the past year have clearly shown that there could be further developments, so that the authority could not possibly carry out its activities for the sum of £20,000. I am therefore relating my remarks strictly to the money resolution although I am aware that I might be slightly trying your patience, Mr. Speaker.
If my hon. Friend the Minister will not respond to my remarks under the terms of the money resolution—I suspect that there is not a great deal of will to deal with the problem of foetal tissue—will he say at what future stage of the Bill he expects hon. Members to have the opportunity to discuss these wider issues on the Floor of the House and not in some Committee to which we do not all have access? They are important issues which have been
770
crushed out. It would try your patience, Mr. Speaker, if I recited the history of their being crushed out, so I merely state that they have been.
9.58 pm
Mr. Freeman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has, once again, raised the quality of the debate. He asked me four questions relating to the money resolution. It was never contemplated that the authority would have any policing responsibility. There might have been some misunderstanding about that. Its job will be simply to review cases where there is a live donation in the offing and the donor is not closely related genetically to the recipient.
The authority will have no responsibility for the wider policing of the Act relating to donations from those who have died. Such donations account for the vast majority of kidney transplants. Therefore, the authority's role and scope are limited. Membership and procedures will be detailed in regulations, subject to procedures in the House. I can assure the House that, in Standing Committee, I will certainly ensure that there is a proper briefing for members of the Standing Committee and other hon. Members about our thoughts on the authority. We are discussing with the legal profession at this moment how the authority should proceed and operate. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I hope that I have allayed them.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has said that the authority does not have a policing role and that it will deal with donations. How can donations be verified? Years ago, I asked questions about trade in foetal tissue, and I found a stone wall and ambiguity. Surely there should be a policing role for the authority.
Mr. Freeman: The authority will be charged with reviewing the relatively few cases of proposed donation from non-genetically related individuals. It will certainly wish to investigate the relationship between the donor and the recipient and whether there is evidence of any money having been passed in this country or abroad. It must use its own judgment. When a donation is required, judgments cannot wait for weeks or months, they must be made quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked about the register and the implications for expense. The register is not covered by the Bill. The register that we are discussing with the medical profession is essential not only for recording donations, particularly live donations and all transplants, but for the recording of clinical information. I am sure that it will be helpful for clinical research purposes. It is not covered by the money resolution. The expenses incurred in setting up a register will be covered to the extent that they fall upon the National Health Service in the normal course of events—that is to say, through district health authorities.
My hon. Friend asked also about the task that the authority will perform in relation to the amount of money provided for in the money resolution. There are about 200 live organ donations each year. Only a small percentage of them are between non-closely genetically related people. Therefore, the balance, which is a small minority, will be those cases that the authority will examine.
Mr. Barry Field: I wrote to my hon. Friend's Department pointing out that there was a

771
historical post within his Department, Her Majesty's inspector of anatomy. The post was created on the basis of tissue and cadaver sales. I wonder whether we should increase the responsibilities of that post to police that very problem.
Mr. Freeman: I will certainly examine that point. I have not yet had the chance to read my hon. Friend's letter. It does not directly affect the money resolution except in so far as it relates to the number of people involved in reviewing proposed donations. We need a collection of wisdom, including clinical judgment. I doubt whether the job could or should be delegated to an authority, which presumably means officials, and perhaps one person in particular. Flexible judgment is required in terms of a collection of individuals who are appointed for their eminence in this medical specialty rather than as a group of officials.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend effectively saying that he expects someone in hospital to get in touch with the authority to say that he is concerned that an organ transplant may be taking place that is not within the terms of the law and that therefore he would like the authority to investigate? Is that how my hon. Friend considers the mechanism will work?
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that we shall go into this in greater detail in Standing Committee, but the brief answer is yes, I expect such notification to be made, although I do not envisage a detailed examination of each particular case at the hospital concerned. However, I hope that the procedures can be expedited and a quick response given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) drew my attention to clause 5, and doubtless we shall debate that clause in Committee. My hon. Friend asked about foetal tissue. As to the foetal tissue not convered by clause 5, I explained in the Second Reading Committee that a committee due to report shortly, the Polkinghorne committee, will review entirely the regulations governing the use of foetal tissue for research. I am not, however, aware, of any commercial trade in foetal tissue and therefore, as far as clause 5 is concerned, it does not affect the money resolution, which I commend to the House.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Organ Transplants Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the expenses of any authority exercising functions under that Act.

Recreational Land
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. John M. Taylor.)
10.5 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to address you, Mr. Speaker, at this unusually early hour for an Adjournment debate.
Every four years, a large section of the British public pays its homage to sport. Furnished with high-cholesterol food and drink, such people park themselves in front of the television and marvel at the prowess of Olympic athletes. At other times they watch "Match of the Day" and the cup final, read the sport pages and engage in the gentle activity of walking to and from their cars. They die of heart disease, obesity and chest complaints.
We are lectured, sometimes rather confusingly, about what we should eat. We bemoan the fact that Britain has one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world, and we tell people not to smoke. Apart from advice, we do little in a practical manner to encourage regular physical exercise. Even when we do consider sporting facilities for the public our thoughts are more likely to centre on artificial playing surfaces, expensive well-equipped sports stadiums or recreational land on the fringes of our cities, which is accessible only to those with cars.
Every year, however, bit by bit, acre by acre, inner-city recreational land is lost for ever to development. The Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates that 100,000 acres has been lost, a figure that the Department of the Environment is unable to substantiate because it has no statistics on that appalling erosion. In the west midlands, half the private sports grounds have disappeared. In Bristol, in the past 15 years there has been a net loss of 69 acres and another 8·5 acres are under immediate threat.
Everyone agrees that sports are a good thing. They improve the nation's health and productively channel the pent-up energies of young people; and team sports foster co-operation with and consideration for others. On 19 April, however, in response to a series of written question from me, it became clear that the Department of the Environment had no idea how much recreational land there is, where it is, or whether the amount of such land is increasing or decreasing. It did not even know what should be the optimum availability of such recreational land.
Labour and Conservative Governments have been at fault. Because they have not perceived the problem, no facts have been compiled, and because no statistics have been kept, Governments have not perceived the problem. In consequence, although since 1970 there have been seven circulars, two development control policy notes and two planning policy guidance notes relating to housing development, and three circulars and one planning policy guidance note relating to retail development, the present Government circular dealing with recreational land is 18 years old. Although I accept that the Department, in response to requests from myself and others, now intends to issue a planning policy guidance note towards the end of the year covering sport and recreation, its action is belated. Much damage has been done, and further delay would be intolerable.
Everyone acknowledges the value of the royal and other parks in London, of Hampstead heath and of Epping forest. We recognise that the greatness of our cities

773
lies in grand public buildings, sweeping crescents and imposing squares and in the delight of trees and the glimpses of green, the visual and environmental refreshment that these green lungs give to us all. No Government would dare license the development of St. James's park or Hampstead heath, yet bit by bit, acre by acre—this is unseen, unnoticed and uncounted by the Government—recreational land that in area is far in excess of all the inner London parks is lost to development.
In areas where there is no habit of travelling to take part in sport, where money is tight, where people need encouragement to be more than mere spectators, where juvenile crime is widespread and where early death through ailments associated with lack of exercise are more common then elsewhere, the erosion of recreational land is the fastest.
Inner-city sites are extremely valuable, and they are easy to build on. In consequence, they are more profitable to developers. The lack of statutory support that is given to local authorities to resist on planning grounds the loss of recreational land results in developers appealing successfully against local authorities' decisions to deny planning permission. It is not adequate for the Department of the Environment to rest its case on the lack of local structure and development plans. Such plans do not have the status of planning circulars or guidelines. Their period of gestation is so long that they are often out of date as soon as they are published.
With each planning inquiry being decided in isolation, without knowledge of the wider picture, it is unsurprising that developers are taking the easier course of infilling on green field sites rather then doing what we would all prefer them to do—revivifying our cities by returning to productive use decayed and derelict inner-city areas. One of the pressures on inner-city land comes because it is difficult to build in the countryside, but it should be possible to satisfy the needs of the cities and to retain England as green and pleasant land.
I am sure that the proposed PPG will take into account the White Paper, which is entitled "The Future of Development Plans". I trust that it will also recognise that sport and recreation are of national importance. Just as planning policy guidance specifies how land should be allocated for housing, as new homes give rise to the need for more recreational space, so the Department should define the level of provision. This form of calculating need must be clear and resistant to challenge and should command wide support.
The PPG must include consideration of latent demand, recognise the special need for open space within low-income areas, accept that all-weather surfaces should be complementary to grass pitches rather than substitutes for them and appreciate the role that sports grounds belonging to educational establishments and in private hands play in protecting and enhancing our environment.
Present charity law imposes an obligation on a charity to sell its assets for the highest value. We have seen this requirement in operation in Bristol. Even if the vendor is prepared to sell at the lower recreational use value, he is prohibited from doing so. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to raise this matter with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has recently published a White Paper on charities, and with the Treasury. My right hon.
774
Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should consider extending the concept of the green belt and provide greater statutory inspection for open-air recreational land by implementing a green space policy for inner-city land. I particularly believe that that is necessary for publicly owned land, and land held by charitable institutions. However, as I recognise that we do not want creeping nationalisation, possibly there should be different rules for open space which is held in private hands. Just as the clean air legislation and the green belt policy has protected us all, so an urban green space policy will be recognised by generations to come as the action of an enlightened Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) is anxious to speak. I understand that he has permission to intervene from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), and he certainly has my permission as well. He wants to refer to specific problems in Bristol. However, I cannot finish without pressing on my hon. Friend the Minister the fact that, if we wish to have dirtier air in our cities, we need to get rid of the green space. If we want health to decline, we need to continue to dissuade people from taking part in physical sports. If we want to channel children's energy into crime, we need simply to remove the sports pitches which help them to burn up their energy.
Inner-city and urban-area open recreational space is a very valuable commodity. If we build on it, we will lose it for all time. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember that.
10.16 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward: It gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), because I believe that recreational land is important to Bristol and to the nation generally. I am disappointed that there are no Opposition Members present to hear the debate.
This subject was originally drawn to my attention partly through my activities as a rugby referee, and also by the Bristols sports consultative committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East and I both want to pay tribute to the efforts of that committee in pressing hon. Members, councillors and others into public awareness of the problems which are developing in Bristol.
As my hon. Friend said, there are a series of serious threats throughout Bristol in terms of loss of land. In general, within the immediate inner city of Bristol, what limited land there is, is protected. The real problem arises from that progressive erosion to which my hon. Friend referred, particularly in what I might loosely describe as the outer inner-city belt, which in my constituency is represented by areas such as St. George, Hillfields, Speedwell and the Fishponds area, where recreational land is limited and is substantially under threat.
As my hon. Friend said, the planning guidelines date back to 1970. They are not much use to people who want to oppose a proposed loss of a sports field or for the city council opposing a proposed development.
The guidelines are unclear. Even where there is a proposal for limited development of part of a sports field which may, in some cases, save a sports club, residents and the city council oppose the development because they feel that salami tactics will develop. While one piece of land

775
might be lost, the automatic response from residents is that, if it is lost, in two, five or eight years the next bit of land might disappear, until there are no sports fields left in the area. I support my hon. Friend in claiming that we need a clear, coherent and urgent planning policy guidance note for all concerned.
In Bristol recently, questions have been raised about the major sports developments at Imperial, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East has made representations to the Hanson Trust. He received an assurance that at this stage there are no proposals to build on any part of that sports facility. It is one of the greatest assets on the southern side of the city and would be a disastrous loss to what I described in respect of my own constituency as the outer belt of the inner city. I hope that it continues to be the case that there will be no plans to develop it.
In my own constituency and just outside it there are proposals to develop the Butler memorial ground, part of Cleeve rugby club, and Kingswood rugby club. Some of the proposals have the support of the sports club. I do not expect the Minister to comment specifically on those proposals, and I shall not do so either. Instead, I shall highlight the threat to sports grounds at this moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, it is worth considering the number of grounds lost over the past few years. According to Bristol city council calculations, those losses amounted to about 69 acres. I believe that that is an under-estimate. In the last few years we have lost the Eastfield road site of the Clifton rugby club, although that was replaced by an alternative site; part of Golden hill; Water lane, Hungerford road, Broomhill road, Brentry hospital; Southmead hospital; Frenchay road, part of Coombe Dingle; another part of Golden hill; Burchells green; and Manor park hospital sports fields. That is a litany of lost land, most of it concentrated in the outer inner-city belt. It has all been lost to housing, and therefore it has been lost for all time.
I said that the city council had under-estimated the land lost, because, from reviewing that list and other documents that the council provided, it appears that it failed to identify the loss three years ago of the Scott Musson Thrisell football field, on which my own house was built, and that of Eastville stadium, where Bristol Rovers previously played. Technically, that is still an open space, but not for much longer. The scale of the problem, even in a city such as Bristol, is larger than one may imagine.
It would be unfair to expect a full response from my hon. Friend the Minister this evening, but I hope that clear guidance will be given. What do the Government expect of Bristol in terms of a policy, so that the city can identify land that it intends protecting as sports fields for all time—particularly in advance of a Bristol development plan? It is all very well the Department of the Environment saying that, once that plan is clear, everyone will know precisely what land will be protected. Unfortunately, as we all recognise, development plans take a long time to prepare, and meanwhile we could lose a substantial part of the playing fields to which I referred.
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether Bristol is out of step with other cities. Is it losing more sports fields? Has it protected its sports fields inadequately? Are there ways in which the city council, if it pursued policy correctly, could be more successful at protecting open spaces within areas of very high housing development than it is at present?
776
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East about the continuing loss of playing fields in Bristol and in the country as a whole. If anything proves how difficult it is to regain such land after it has been lost, it is the example of Eastville. A few years ago, Bristol Rovers moved out of Bristol and now play at Chirton park in Bath, but they seek site after site to relocate within the city. They are finding it virtually impossible. That shows how difficult it is to replace land that is lost, even if it is on the outer side of city areas.
10.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) on raising the subject of this Adjournment debate. It is one of concern not only to his constituents but to many others throughout the country. Because of my Friend's persistence, his activities have taken on the characteristics of a national campaign, and it is none the worse for that. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) ensured that the debate was even fuller than otherwise is would have been.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East knows, it is the Government's policy to encourage sport and physical recreation in its widest sense, and to provide more oppportunities for all members of the community to enjoy the increasingly wide range of activities that are now attracting interest. We know the tremendous benefit and pleasure that people derive from sport and recreation, both as participants and as spectators, and we are keen to see that there is as much opportunity for them as possible.
I hope that my hon. Friends will take some encouragement from the statistics. In 1983–84, 10·6 million men and women took part in indoor sports and 12·6 million in outdoor sports. By 1987–88, the figures had increased to 12·2 million and 13 million respectively. That shows the increasing participation in sport.
One important way in which to increase participation is to provide local and regional facilities. During 1987–88, the Sports Council provided grant aid of nearly £9 million to stimulate and promote new schemes. In the south-west region alone, there were 103 schemes, including 29 new hard sports facilities and seven new outdoor grass pitches.
The regional councils of sport and recreation have carried out local studies of the availability of recreational land in their areas. Those studies suggest that, although the position varies from area to area, the overall provision of recreational land has remained fairly static. In some areas the pattern of ownership has changed—for example, there has been a reduction in the number of playing fields in industrial ownership. That has been matched, however, by a substantial increase in both the quality and quantity of provision in the voluntary sector, with, for example, some 100 new artificial turf pitches being provided in the last 10 years.
Further evidence of the Government's support for sport and recreation can be found in the comprehensive approach of our action for cities initiative. The promotion of facilities for sport and recreation is an important element of that initiative, and funding for such facilities is available through the urban programme, city grant and inner city task forces.
In 1988–89, urban programme funds amounting to £17 million were granted to a total of 3,358 sport and

777
recreational projects, which attracted a total of over 63 million users during the year. One city grant scheme that will be of particular interest to my hon. Friends involved a grant of £145,000 to the Bristol Hawks Gymnastics club towards the cost of converting a disused building into a gymnastics centre.
My hon. Friends have concentrated on the loss of recreational land in Bristol. Although in the 15 years from 1973 to 1988 there has been a net loss of—according to our calculations—19·2 hectares of recreational land to development, Bristol can claim to be well provided with open space generally, and few places in the city are far from such space or from the countryside. That, of course, is no reason for complacency, and my hon. Friends are certainly not complacent: they are anxious that Bristol's existing character should be maintained.
My hon. Friends will appreciate that I cannot comment on any specific recent or prospective planning cases, but I assure the House that the views that have been expressed today will be borne in mind when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes decisions on the cases currently before him. Each proposal must, of course, be considered on its individual merits, and we must weigh the need for recreational land against the claims for other uses competing for it. That can lead to some difficult decisions, and, as my hon. Friends will know, it is seldom possible to reach planning decisions that meet with everyone's approval; that is one of the delights of being Secretary of State for the Environment.
One piece of advice that I can give is that one of the best ways to safeguard public recreational land is for local planning authorities to include policies with that objective in their local development plans. Such plans and policies will not provide an absolute guarantee, as they will be only one of the many material considerations that planning authorities and inspectors must take into account when determining planning applications and appeals. Nevertheless, up-to-date local plans, consistent with national policies and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan, will carry considerable weight both in local planning decisions and in appeals and other cases decided by my right hon. Friend or his inspectors.
I would give the same advice to people concerned generally about the intense pressure for development that undoubtedly exists in some urban areas, whether that pressure affects gardens, recreational land, or other public or private open space. There is no substitute for a well thought out, thoroughly debated and properly adopted local plan containing policies dealing with these issues. The plan should be realistic and must not, for example, simply seek to outlaw all development, but provided the plan demonstrates how housing and other necessary development can be accommodated, it will be legitimate for it also to include firm policies on issues such as housing densities and the protection of the open spaces that make such a vital contribution to the character of our towns and cities. If realistic policies are in properly adopted local plans, they will carry considerable weight.
This is the essential message of the planning policy guidance note on local plans that we issued last November. That note draws attention to the fact that large areas of England and Wales are still without formally adopted and up-to-date local plans. It urges local authorities to make
778
full use of this key component of the planning system to provide a clear basis for sound and sustainable development control decisions.
Until very recently, there was no up-to-date adopted local plan containing policies for the protection of recreational land in Bristol. There is now an adopted local plan for Bedminster, which includes policies to increase recreational opportunities, especially for young children. Elsewhere in Bristol, the city council relies on a non-statutory 1984 report entitled "Open Space in Bristol" when determining applications and arguing its case on appeal. That report, while better than nothing, does not carry the same weight as a formal local plan which has been through the proper process of public consultations, modification—as necessary in the light of comments—and, finally, adoption.
Both the city council and local authorities may be assisted in the task of devising appropriate policies for protecting open spaces by the results of a research project that my Department has recently commissioned from Birmingham polytechnic. One of the aims of this project is to examine the role of local authorities in creating new and retaining existing open spaces in inner-city areas. The results of that project should be available towards the end of the year.
The important role of local plans will be one of the messages in the new planning policy guidance note. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East claimed credit, quite rightly, for having elicited a commitment from the Government to implement a revised planning policy guidance note on the subject of sport and recreation. The aim of the note will be to consolidate existing guidance—some of which is, on any view, outdated and spread between several different departmental circulars—and to update that guidance as necessary. We hope to issue the note later in the year.
The note will focus on issues that are legitimate concerns of the planning system. The extent to which there is a shortfall in provision will be a local matter to be dealt with in local plans. It will be for the local planning authority to identify deficiencies in provision and to justify the amount and location against other competing pressures for the use of that land. The note will remind local planning authorities of the importance of public consultation in the preparation and amendment of local plans and of the need to consult the regional councils for sport and recreation about their policies and about individual development control decisions, as necessary.
My officials have had preliminary discussions with officers of the Sports Council about the scope and content of the proposed planning policy guidance note. I have also noted the constructive and helpful suggestions put forward on behalf of the Bristol sports association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East. I can assure him that all these suggestions will be taken most carefully into account as work on the note proceeds.
To answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood about what can be done now—because the implementation of these plans takes time—even at the preliminary stage a plan that is about to go out for consultation carries more weight than a plan that has not been drawn up. Although the plan that carries the most weight will be the one that has been fully adopted, even at an intermediate stage a plan that is still under

779
discussion can be a useful mechanism for a local authority that wishes to impress the inspectorate with its policies for the protection of recreational land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East referred to charities. He is in as strong a position as anybody to raise these matters with our right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, but I shall raise them, too. My hon. Friend knows that a White Paper on charities has been published recently. It is a
780
topical subject for discussion in the House, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have opportunities to develop further his ideas.
I thank my hon. Friends for raising this issue. It is now a national issue. I hope that I have satisfied the House that the Government are addressing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WALES

  National Museum of Wales
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the National Museum of Wales to discuss its maintenance budget and acquisition budget.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the director of the National Museum of Wales to discuss its staffing costs and acquisition budget.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales last met the president of the National Museum of Wales on 14 November 1988, when a range of issues including budgetary and financial matters was discussed. The director of the National Museum of Wales also attended this meeting.

  Cottage Hospital (Caernarfon)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of 1986, 1987 and 1988(a) the percentage occupancy of beds and (b) the total number of casualty cases treated at the Cottage hospital, Caernarfon.

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

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage occupancy of beds in all specialties

  67

  66

  79

  New minor casualty patients

  1,262

  1,047

  1,526

  Total attendances by minor casualty patients

  1,869

  1,824

  2,738

  Naval Nuclear Weapons (Accidents)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contingency plans his Department has for dealing with an accident involving any naval nuclear weapon in the course of non-operational activities including courtesy calls; and what specific arrangements apply to the port of Cardiff.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 10 May, at column 476.

  Schools (Shotton)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Shotton county infants school to meet the parents and staff to receive a petition concerning the need for additional capitation allowances to enable the school to purchase essential materials for classroom activities.
  348
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no present intention of visiting Shotton county infants school. It would be more appropriate for the parents and staff of that school to express their views to the local education authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Venerable Edward Morgan VP School, Shotton, to meet the parents and staff to discuss the impact of local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Our officials have received copies of the local education authority's draft scheme for local management of schools and have discussed it with the authority's officials. I expect the authority's formal scheme to be submitted for my right hon. Friend's consideration in the next few months.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit St. Ethelwolds VP School, Shotton, to meet the parents and staff concerning the need for St. Ethelwolds to have a school hall and other extensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit St. Ethelwold's Church in Wales school, Shotton in the near future. A proposal for an extension of the schools, including a hall, is included in Clwyd education authority's bids for expenditure on building works at voluntary-aided schools in 1989–90. A decision on the voluntary-aided schools' building programme for 1989–90 will be made shortly.

  Clwyd Local Education Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will make additional moneys available to Clwyd local education authority to enable the local eduation authority to increase its capitation allowances in its primary and infants schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The setting of capitation allowances for Clwyd schools is a matter for the education authority within its perceived assessment of the requirements of the different elements of the education service.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new moneys he will allocate to the Clwyd local education authority to enable the local education authority to increase the number of its full-time staff in high schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for the number of staff employed in secondary schools in Clwyd lies entirely with the education authority which sets staffing levels in line with its assessment of priorities within the education service.

  Health Authorities (Building Programmes)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he proposes to meet the chairman of the health authorities of Wales to discuss their authorities need for more cash to meet their building programme deadlines; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make additional allocations to the health authorities of Wales to enable them to begin their hospital building programmes on schedule;
  349
  (3) if he proposes to make additional payments to health authorities to enable them to meet the increased costs in building projects as a result of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend met chairmen of district health authorities on 15 May when a range of matters concerning the White Paper "Working for Patients" was discussed. A date for the next meeting has yet to be agreed. My right hon. Friend has no plans to increase DHAs' capital allocations, other than for specific purposes to be announced in the course of the year. Welsh health authorities' discretionary capital allocations this year total £39 million, an increase of nearly 32 per cent. over last year; and we expect them to plan flexibly within the resources available for contingencies such as fluctuations in construction costs.

  Hospital building projects to be started in financial year 1989–90

  District Health Authority

  Project

  Projected start date

  Estimated total costs (£ million)

  Clwyd

  Deeside Community Hospital

  September 1989

  4·1

  Ysbyty Maelor Wrecsam—Phase 2A

  November 1989

  16·3

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—Adaptations to pharmacy

  August 1989

  0·12

  East Dyfed

  Amman Valley Hospital—Development

  May 1989

  0·86

  Gwent

  Torfaen Hospital—Mental illness unit

  January 1990

  3·2

  Blaina Rehabilitation Unit

  July 1989

  0·464

  Islwyn Mental Illness Unit

  January 1990

  0·9

  Gwynedd

  Druid/Cefni Hospital—Amalgamation

  January 1990

  1·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ystrad Fechan Community Hospital

  October 1989

  8·0

  Aberdare Hospital—Elderly unit

  July 1989

  1·6

  East Glamorgan Hospital—Geriatric unit

  January 1990

  1·2

  East Glamorgan Hospital—Obstetrics theatre

  May 1989

  0·42

  Tonteg Hospital—Elderly mentally infirm ward

  July 1989

  0·45

  Tyntyla Hospital—Elderly mentally infirm ward and day unit

  April 1989

  0·2

  Pembrokeshire

  Nil

  Powys

  Machynlleth Hospital—Phase 1

  July 1989

  1·6

  South Glamorgan

  Llandough Hospital—Extension to children's centre

  January 1990

  0·068

  West Glamorgan

  Tonna Hospital—Development

  May 1989

  4·0

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 501, whether the woodland grant scheme applications at Maesllymystyn and Gesail Ddu are in respect of adjoining land.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The proposed planting schemes at Maesllymystyn and Gesail Ddu are on the same hillside but, following the withdrawal of part of one of the schemes, are now approximately three quarters of a mile apart.

  Advertising
  Mr. Growth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.
  350
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the hospital building projects to be started in this financial year in Wales in each of the health authority areas, with likely starting dates and estimated costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The details requested, which are drawn from capital programmes produced by health authorities, are set out in the following table. They demonstrate a continuing commitment on the part of health authorities in Wales to enhancing and improving health care provision within their respective districts. They do not take into account capital investments on maintenance and upgrading work. Therefore, they represent only a small proportion of the overall capital developments planned by authorities in the coming 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Department's spending on television advertising during the past five financial years is £20,000. This spending was in the financial year 1988–89 on the Welsh element of the misuse of drugs campaign.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the terms of reference of the current review of the bathing water compliance programme of the Welsh water authority, together with its timetable.

  Mr. Grist
  Water authorities have been asked to assess the feasibility and implications for investment and operating costs of bringing all identified waters up to standard.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Czechoslovakia (Human Rights)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the human rights record of Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We regularly receive letters from hon. Members and from members of the public on Czechoslovakia's human rights record, which gives considerable grounds for concern.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the imprisonment by the Czechoslovakian authorities of Mr. Ivan Jirous.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a series of letters from hon. Members and from members of the public on the imprisonment by the Czechoslovak authorities of Mr. Ivan Jirous.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made by his Department to the Czechoslovakian authorities concerning the imprisonment of Mr. Ivan Jirous.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State stressed our deep concern at the imprisonment of Mr. Ivan Jirous to a member of the Czechoslovak leadership, Mr. Miroslav Stepan, when he called on 15 May.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining his Department's assessment of human rights in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We would like to see a substantial improvement in Czechoslovakia's unsatisfactory record on human rights. The Czechoslovak authorities have said they propose to bring their domestic legislation into line with their CSCE commitments. We urge them to do this without delay, and in the meantime to act in the spirit of those commitments.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to encourage the Government of Czechoslovakia to improve its record on human rights.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We shall continue to raise abuses of human rights in Czechoslovakia with their authorities whenever necessary, and urge the Czechoslovak Government to fulfil their commitments and improve its record in this sphere.

  European Community
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many proposals from the 352
  European Commission since the signing of the Single European Act have been as a result of requests from member states for action; how many proposals came from within the Commission itself; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since the Single European Act, the Commission has brought forward 1,255 legislative proposals. There has been no major change in the number of annual proposals made since the SEA. The Commission does not, however, produce statistics distinguishing between those originating in the Commission and those on which proposals have been requested by member states.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress made towards achieving the objectives set out in the solemn declaration on European union made by Heads of Government at the Stuttgart summit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Community has agreed the Single European Act which, in accordance with the solemn declaration of Stuttgart, contains measures to complete the internal market, improve decision-making and make foreign policy co-operation more effective.

  Philippines (Military Aid)
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total military aid to the Philippines in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not our practive to disclose the cost of assistance to individual countries.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total cost of military training provided for the Philippine Government; and in what form it is provided.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Filipino students have attended a small number of British military training courses subsidised by Her Majesty's Government, including vehicle maintenance and security courses. It is not our practice to disclose the cost of assistance to individual countries.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the age group 16 to 24 inclusive, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 and over 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, STEP, CEP or JTS or (e) not included in the above and undertaking full-time education or training, from spring 1979 for each year to spring 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  Available estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:
  353

  Persons either in employment or undertaking full-time education or training, by age

  Great Britain—Spring estimate

  Thousands

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  51988

  16 to 24

  Full-time2 employees

  4,535

  4,149

  3,826

  3,801

  3,875

  3,822

  3,855

  3,884

  Part-time2 employees

  249

  455

  461

  580

  634

  652

  688

  773

  Self-employed

  96

  136

  159

  212

  210

  216

  246

  271

  On Government employment and training programmes3

  n/a

  n/a

  243

  261

  332

  323

  382

  390

  Not in employment and undertaking full-time education or training4

  n/a

  n/a

  1,279

  1,259

  1,146

  1,118

  1,128

  1,040

  25 to 34

  Full-time2 employees

  4,283

  4,056

  3,807

  3,818

  3,876

  3,967

  4,020

  4,246

  Part-time2 employees

  811

  800

  685

  754

  782

  829

  891

  948

  Self-employed

  438

  515

  514

  561

  595

  586

  665

  725

  On Government employment and training programmes3

  n/a

  n/a

  36

  22

  27

  31

  47

  61

  Not in employment and undertaking full-time education or training4

  n/a

  n/a

  66

  79

  66

  70

  64

  70

  35 to 44

  Full-time2 employees

  3,472

  3,360

  3,507

  3,484

  3,564

  3,612

  3,640

  3,745

  Part-time2 employees

  1,080

  1,098

  1,115

  1,216

  1,274

  1,318

  1,346

  1,358

  Self-employed

  519

  617

  676

  804

  826

  836

  892

  963

  On Government employment and training programmes3

  n/a

  n/a

  37

  15

  12

  20

  26

  36

  Not in employment and undertaking full-time education or training4

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  17

  27

  25

  25

  24

  45 to 54

  Full-time2 employees

  3,466

  3,312

  3,057

  2,984

  2,940

  2,914

  2,824

  2,904

  Part-time2 employees

  956

  962

  941

  995

  976

  972

  985

  1,020

  Self-employed

  407

  495

  502

  558

  583

  605

  641

  668

  On Government employment and training programmes3

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  11

  15

  21

  20

  Not in employment and undertaking full-time education or training4

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  55 and over

  Full-time2 employees

  2,658

  2,353

  2,097

  1,990

  1,897

  1,798

  1,710

  1,770

  Part-time2 employees

  922

  963

  792

  833

  811

  823

  802

  791

  Self-employed

  357

  436

  449

  483

  500

  483

  553

  530

  On Government employment and training programmes3

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  1

  11

  13

  12

  11

  Not in employment and undertaking full-time education or training4

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 Sample size too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  2 Based on respondent's own assessment.

  3Includes all on YTS, CI, CP, VPP and their predecessors, together with those on 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.

  4 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.

  5 Preliminary estimates (1988 only).

  n/a =Not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were unemployment rates by ethnic origin and sex for each standard region and Wales, for each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]:Unemployment rates by ethnic origin are available from
  354
  the labour force survey for single years from 1983 to 1988 for Great Britain as shown in table 1. They are available for standard regions, Wales and Scotland averaged over.three years as shown in tables 2–5; these averages produce more reliable estimates for ethnic groups than do data for a single year. Further, estimates are not shown in the tables where they are based on small samples.
  355

  Table 1: Trends in unemployment rates2 by ethnic origin; spring 1983 to 1988

  Persons of working age (16 to 59/64)

  Great Britain per cent·

  GB labour force definition of unemployment

  ILO/OECD definition of unemployment

  1983

  1984

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988 (preliminary results)

  All persons

  All origins3

  11·2

  11·3

  11·8

  11·2

  11·2

  10·7

  8·7

  White

  10·9

  10·8

  11·4

  10·9

  10·8

  10·5

  8·3

  Ethnic minority groups of whom:

  20·9

  20·5

  21·4

  20·7

  20·0

  17·1

  13·5

  West Indian-Guyanese

  23

  25

  24

  22

  23

  18

  15

  Indian

  18

  15

  16

  18

  17

  13

  12

  Pakistan-Bangladeshi

  32

  35

  34

  30

  28

  29

  21

  All other origins3

  16

  19

  19

  18

  17

  15

  10

  Males

  All origins3

  11·9

  11·6

  11·9

  11·5

  11·5

  11·0

  8·9

  White

  11·5

  11·1

  11·4

  11·0

  11·1

  10·7

  8·6

  Ethnic minority groups of whom:

  21·7

  21·1

  22·1

  21·6

  20·5

  17·4

  14·3

  West Indian-Guyanese

  28

  29

  30

  21

  26

  21

  18

  Indian

  17

  13

  13

  19

  16

  10

  11

  Pakistan-Bangladeshi

  31

  34

  33

  28

  27

  30

  25

  All other origins3

  17

  18

  19

  18

  17

  15

  9

  Females

  All origins3

  10·3

  10·8

  11·7

  10·9

  10·8

  10·3

  8·5

  White

  9·9

  10·4

  11·3

  10·6

  10·4

  10·1

  8·3

  Ethnic minority groups of whom:

  18·8

  19·3

  20·2

  19·2

  19·4

  16·5

  12·4

  West Indian-guyanese

  19

  17

  18

  20

  19

  16

  11

  Indian

  20

  19

  20

  17

  19

  17

  13

  Pakistan-Bangladeshi

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  All other origins3

  15

  20

  19

  17

  17

  15

  10

  Source: LFS time series estimates·

  1 Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown·

  2 Unemployed people expresses as a percentage of all economically active persons in the relevant group· Based on ILO/OECD definition of unemployment (except as indicated in the first two columns of table 1, and in table 5)·

  3 Includes those who did not state origin·

  Table 2

  Unemployment rates2 by ethnic origin and region.average, spring 1986–88

  Persons of working age (16 to 59–64)

  Per cent.

  All ethnic origins3

  White

  Ethnic minority

  West Indian/Guyanese

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  All other origins3

  All persons

  Great Britain

  10

  10

  17

  19

  14

  27

  14

  England

  10

  9

  17

  19

  14

  27

  14

  North

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  11

  22

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  9

  19

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  7

  7

  13

  16

  10

  24

  12

  Greater London

  9

  8

  15

  17

  10

  28

  13

  Rest of South East

  6

  6

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  9

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  11

  11

  26

  24

  25

  1

  1

  North West

  13

  13

  23

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  13

  13

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Males

  Great Britain

  10

  10

  17

  22

  12

  27

  13

  England

  10

  9

  17

  22

  12

  27

  13

  North

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  7

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  7

  7

  14

  19

  1

  1

  12

  Greater London

  10

  9

  15

  20

  1

  1

  14

  Rest of South East

  6

  6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  8

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  12

  11

  26

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  14

  13

  23

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  15

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  356 357

  All ethnic origins3

  White

  Ethnic minority

  West Indian/Guyanese

  Indian

  Pakistani/ Bangladeshi

  All other origins3

  Females

  Great Britain

  10

  10

  16

  16

  16

  1

  14

  England

  9

  9

  16

  16

  16

  1

  14

  North

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  10

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  10

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  7

  13

  13

  13

  1

  1

  Greater London

  8

  7

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  Rest of South East

  7

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  12

  91

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  11

  10

  25

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  13

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  See footnote to table 1.

  Source: LFS estimates.

  Table 3

  Unemployment Rates2 By Ethnic Origin and Region: Average Spring 1985–1987

  Persons of working age (16 to 59/64)

  Per cent.

  All ethnic origins3

  White

  Ethnic minority groups

  West Indian/Guyanese

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangaladeshi

  All other Origins3

  All persons

  Great Britain

  11

  11

  19

  21

  16

  29

  17

  England

  11

  10

  19

  21

  16

  29

  16

  North

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  12

  26

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  10

  23

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  15

  17

  10

  25

  11

  Greater London

  10

  9

  16

  18

  10

  1

  15

  Rest of South East

  7

  7

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  13

  12

  31

  31

  27

  12

  1

  North West

  14

  13

  26

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Males

  Great Britain

  11

  11

  20

  24

  15

  28

  17

  England

  11

  10

  20

  21

  15

  29

  17

  North

  16

  16

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  13

  25

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  10

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  15

  19

  1

  1

  15

  Greater London

  10

  9

  17

  21

  1

  1

  17

  Rest of South East

  7

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  14

  13

  32

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  14

  14

  26

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  15

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Females

  Great Britain

  11

  10

  18

  18

  18

  1

  16

  England

  10

  10

  18

  18

  18

  1

  16

  North

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  11

  10

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  10

  10

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  Greater London

  9

  8

  14

  15

  1

  1

  1

  Rest of South East

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  12

  11

  31

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  13

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  13

  13

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  13

  13

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  See footnote to table 1

  Source: LFS estimates.
  358 359

  Table 4

  Unemployment Rates2 By Ethnic Origin and Region: Average Spring 1984–1986

  Persons of working age (16 to 59/64)

  Per cent.

  All ethnic origins3

  White

  Ethnic minority groups

  West Indian/Guyanese

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  All other Origins3

  All persons

  Great Britain

  11

  10

  20

  22

  16

  31

  18

  England

  10

  10

  20

  22

  16

  31

  17

  North

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  11

  28

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  9

  20

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  16

  18

  11

  26

  16

  Greater London

  9

  8

  16

  19

  11

  1

  17

  Rest of South East

  7

  7

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  13

  12

  29

  30

  26

  40

  1

  North West

  13

  13

  29

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Males

  Great Britain

  11

  11

  21

  25

  15

  30

  17

  England

  11

  10

  21

  25

  16

  30

  17

  North

  16

  16

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  12

  29

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  7

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  7

  16

  21

  9

  1

  15

  Greater London

  9

  8

  17

  22

  1

  1

  15

  Rest of South East

  7

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  14

  12

  31

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  15

  14

  31

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  15

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  15

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Females

  Great Britain

  10

  10

  19

  18

  18

  1

  18

  England

  10

  9

  19

  18

  18

  1

  18

  North

  13

  13

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  16

  16

  14

  1

  17

  Greater London

  9

  8

  16

  16

  1

  1

  19

  Rest of South East

  8

  7

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South West

  9

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  12

  11

  27

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  12

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 See footnote to table 1.

  Source: LFS estimates.

  Table 5

  Unemployment Rates2 By Ethnic Origin and Region: Average Spring 1983–1985

  Persons of working age (16 to 59/64)

  Per cent.

  All ethnic origins3

  White

  Ethnic minority groups

  West Indian/Guyanese

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  All other Origins3

  All persons

  Great Britain

  11

  11

  20

  22

  17

  32

  17

  North

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  12

  27

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  9

  9

  20

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  16

  19

  12

  25

  15

  South West

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  14

  12

  30

  32

  26

  43

  1

  North West

  14

  13

  29

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  14

  14

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Males

  Great Britain

  11

  11

  21

  26

  16

  31

  17

  360 361

  All ethnic origins3

  White

  Ethnic minority groups

  West Indian/Guyanese

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  All other Origins3

  North

  17

  16

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  12

  30

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  10

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  16

  23

  10

  1

  14

  South West

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  15

  13

  32

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  15

  14

  32

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  15

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Females

  Great Britain

  10

  10

  19

  18

  18

  1

  18

  North

  13

  13

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Anglia

  9

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South East

  8

  8

  16

  16

  15

  1

  17

  South West

  9

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  12

  11

  26

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Scotland

  12

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  See footnote to table 1. Results are based on Great Britain labour force definition of unemployment. Results for England, Greater London and rest of South East are not readily available.

  Source: LFS estimates.

  Unemployment Insurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of "Insurance for Unemployment" by Michael Beenstock and Valerie Brasse of the City university.

  Mr. Lee
  A copy of "Insurance for Unemployment" by Michael Beenstock and Valerie Brasse is held in the Employment Department library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the London School of Economics discussion paper, "The Mirage of Private Unemployment Insurance" by Nicholas Barr; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  A copy of "The Mirage of Private Unemployment Insurance" by Nicholas Barr is held in the Employment Department library. It has always been a policy of the library to obtain any material relevant to my Department's areas of interest.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 28 April,Official Report, column 690, what countries in the Council of Ministers favoured deferring implementation of the European Economic Community directive giving part-time workers the same legal rights as full-time workers.

  Mr. Cope
  The Council of Ministers last considered the draft directive on voluntary part-time work in 1987. The draft directive was not adopted. Proceedings in the Council of Ministers are confidential.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has yet received any advice from 362
  the Health and Safety Executive concerning safety measures for workers in the slaughtering and butchery trade who may come into contact with bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected products.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's field staff is available to give advice to employers and employees when necessary on any health risks associated with cattle, their carcases and their products which may be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). I understand that, in the light of the report of the Southwood working party on BSE, the executive has established a task force on occupational zoonoses (ie diseases which may be transmissable from animals to man). As part of its remit, the task force is considering what further action may be necessary in respect of occupational health and safety aspects of BSE.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance currently exists to occupational groups involved with handling of cattle or cattle products in the light of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Advice on safety precautions to be taken has been issued to the Health and Safety Executive's inspectors for dissemination either on request or during the course of their visits to those dealing with cattle and animal products. It covers basic hygiene principles which are considered appropriate for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.
  363
  Mr. Cope
  The total amount spent by my Department on commercial television advertising for each of the past five financial years is as follows:

  £million

  1988–89

  113·7

  1987–88

  3·0

  1986–87

  9·3

  1985–86

  nil

  1984–85

  nil

  1 Estimated out–turn. Includes employment service expenditure.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total amount of money spent on work-related Government training schemes in each of the years 1983–88 inclusive.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The expenditure by the Government on work-related training programmes in Great Britain in the relevant financial years is as follows:

  Year to 31 March

  £ million

  1983–84

  837

  1984–85

  999

  1985–86

  1,042

  1986–87

  1,135

  1987–88

  1,300

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Executive (Grants)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's grants offices the date of which approval for a grant would be issued for (a) an improvements grant and (b) a repair grant on an application received on 2 May.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I am advised by the chief executive of the executive that the information requested is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. To prepare such detail would require a major exercise in each of the grants offices.

  Nurses and Midwives

  Ancillary

  Administration and Clerical

  Professional and Technical Staff

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Whole time equivalents

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Whole time equivalents

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Whole time equivalents

  Number

  Whole time equivalents

  Eastern Board

  1979

  6,775

  2,979

  8,566·84

  3,652

  2,619

  5,184·37

  2,228

  525

  2,515·53

  1,987

  1,781·38

  1980

  7,142

  3,298

  9,074·09

  3,708

  2,685

  5,284·19

  2,287

  554

  2,590·83

  2,103

  1,879·93

  1981

  7,612

  3,367

  9,581·60

  3,768

  2,811

  5,406·25

  2,324

  570

  2,636·42

  2,189

  1,968·24

  1982

  7,861

  3,347

  9,854·68

  3,754

  2,899

  5,433·79

  2,381

  590

  2,706·43

  2,243

  2,026·44

  1983

  7,898

  3,270

  9,841·90

  3,740

  2,969

  5,463·41

  2,401

  688

  2,734·63

  2,287

  2,072·66

  1984

  7,940

  3,223

  9,856·19

  3,572

  2,975

  5,302·10

  2,412

  630

  2,760·06

  2,295

  2,086·22

  1985

  7,647

  3,167

  9,520·20

  3,420

  2,914

  5,116·01

  2,397

  654

  2,758·60

  2,256

  2,043·71

  1986

  7,517

  3,128

  9,378·77

  3,191

  3,012

  4,939·57

  2,467

  704

  2,857·28

  2,268

  2,058·94

  1987

  7,308

  3,131

  9,175·02

  3,046

  3,045

  4,820·75

  2,457

  737

  2,864·63

  2,165

  1,962·41

  1988

  7,396

  3,400

  9,409·54

  2,868

  3,068

  4,656·56

  2,529

  772

  2,955·00

  2,113

  1·917·35

  Northern Board

  1979

  1,861

  760

  2,339·47

  1,165

  513

  1,433·32

  718

  175

  809·47

  549

  472·38

  1980

  1,932

  863

  2,477·27

  1,176

  553

  1,464·63

  762

  185

  859·47

  575

  496·65

  Taxi Service (Castlereagh)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the new taxi service operating from the vicinity of 231 Saintfields road, Castlereagh, has planning permission; how many taxis are based at this location; and whether there are adequate parking places for these taxis.

  Mr. Needham
  The taxi service is operating without planning approval. Enforcement action has commenced to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Should this result in the receipt of a planning application, an assessment will then be made of the scale of operations intended.

  Wild Birds (Conservation)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to meet his obligations with respect to the designation of special protection areas under article 4 of the EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds; and if he intends to include sites at Upper Lough Erne and Lough Neagh.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is giving priority to the designation of Areas of Special Scientific Interest under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Where ASSIs are also potential special protection areas under EC directive 79/409, the Department will proceed towards SPA declarations as soon as is practicable after ASSI confirmations.

  It is expected that a small number of SPAs will be declared during the next two years, and Lough Neagh and parts of Upper and Lower Lough Erne will be among the areas considered for early designation.

  Health Board Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by each health board for each year since 1979 the numbers of staff expressed as a whole-time equivalent and as actual full-time and part-time members in the categories(a) ancillary, (b) administration and clerical, (c) nurses and midwives and (d) professional and technical.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is set out in the table.
  365

  Nurses and Midwives

  Ancillary

  Administration and Clerical

  Professional and Technical Staff

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Whole time equivalents

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Whole time equivalents

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Whole time equivalents

  Number

  Whole time equivalents

  1981

  2,103

  925

  2,719·24

  1,200

  577

  1,502·67

  817

  202

  922·80

  599

  511·70

  1982

  2,113

  890

  2,706·90

  1,183

  604

  1,500·95

  824

  207

  935·50

  562

  494·50

  1983

  2,207

  885

  2,808·16

  1,144

  663

  1,493·79

  837

  208

  949·45

  596

  516·96

  1984

  2,281

  891

  2,882·15

  1,046

  734

  1,436·45

  857

  223

  891·32

  606

  528·36

  1985

  2,248

  938

  2,884·87

  1,008

  767

  1,421·97

  886

  233

  1,005·80

  591

  510·89

  1986

  2,204

  971

  2,861·13

  941

  778

  1,336·58

  868

  245

  1,005·38

  580

  503·84

  1987

  2,192

  1,033

  2,888·08

  898

  796

  1,340·00

  839

  266

  991·06

  564

  486·27

  1988

  2,081

  1,075

  2,803·20

  800

  841

  1,271·29

  855

  291

  1,018·37

  557

  480·51

  Southern Board

  1979

  2,043

  873

  2,578·35

  1,171

  582

  1,500·42

  634

  84

  679·80

  467

  409·69

  1980

  2,006

  992

  2,639·30

  1,177

  598

  1,514·86

  634

  79

  676·63

  475

  420·54

  1981

  2,140

  1,059

  2,819·42

  1,199

  695

  1,588·51

  648

  100

  702·09

  478

  422·80

  1982

  2,187

  1,067

  2,871·39

  1,168

  758

  1,589·24

  676

  104

  731·96

  508

  449·43

  1983

  2,254

  1,054

  2,930·56

  1,164

  771

  1,594·21

  695

  100

  749·51

  492

  427·13

  1984

  2,242

  1,043

  2,913·46

  1,083

  785

  1,525·11

  709

  104

  765·19

  503

  438·30

  1985

  2,206

  1,030

  2,865·12

  1,043

  805

  1,491·77

  725

  112

  785·56

  522

  453·24

  1986

  2,162

  1,044

  2,802·46

  985

  855

  1,457·49

  704

  133

  775·83

  490

  418·08

  1987

  2,125

  1,059

  2,791·32

  913

  836

  1,377·74

  700

  148

  779·56

  426

  371·05

  1988

  2,146

  1,086

  2,831·26

  862

  811

  1,313·79

  701

  186

  803·13

  449

  396·38

  Western Board

  1979

  2,439

  325

  2,637·44

  1,325

  450

  1,585·00

  554

  59

  585·16

  410

  375·19

  1980

  2,479

  333

  2,684·82

  1,295

  484

  1,574·28

  583

  58

  613·87

  415

  380·90

  1981

  2,688

  352

  2,908·54

  1,317

  497

  1,605·44

  605

  53

  633·16

  424

  378·33

  1982

  2,683

  347

  2,901·12

  1,312

  555

  1,636·78

  612

  64

  645·78

  426

  388·87

  1983

  2,717

  342

  2,932·25

  1,298

  556

  1,621·27

  608

  83

  652·96

  431

  397·74

  1984

  2,650

  332

  2,860·00

  1,224

  576

  1,564·59

  633

  85

  677·97

  446

  410·13

  1985

  2,688

  312

  2,885·74

  1,191

  577

  1,533·18

  659

  95

  709·29

  449

  413·80

  1986

  2,636

  318

  2,833·52

  1,176

  587

  1,528·06

  664

  118

  727·23

  424

  390·66

  1987

  2,663

  301

  2,856·73

  1,132

  591

  1,487·66

  653

  105

  708·05

  392

  359·30

  1988

  2,629

  305

  2,821·10

  1,065

  609

  1,426·14

  719

  124

  787·24

  416

  380·42

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each year since 1979(a)

  Year

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  Malone Place

  —

  Newry General

  —

  1982

  —

  Mary Ranken

  —

  —

  —

  Ratheane

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  Hopefield

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  Quoile

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  Claremont St

  Sir Thomas and

  Bannvale

  Strabane GP

  Samaritan

  Lady Dixon

  Drumarg House

  Maternity Unit

  Templemore Ave

  Roe Valley GP

  Haypark

  —

  —

  Maternity Unit

  1987

  —

  —

  Moira

  —

  1988

  Cultra House

  Carrickfergus

  Tower Hill GP

  St. Columbs Co

  —

  Smiley

  Maternity Unit

  Hospital

  —

  Cushendall

  Banbridge GP

  —

  —

  —

  Maternity Unit

  —

  1989

  Lissue

  —

  —

  Anderson House GP Maternity Unit

  (b) There are no records of partial closures in Northern Ireland until last year, when a partial closure of Dalriada hospital in the northern board area was affected.

  Capital Projects (Health Boards)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of each capital project costing more than £1 million(a) actually under construction and (b) at the proposal or planning stage; if
  366
  each hospital closed completely and (b) each hospital closed partially; and if he will break that list down by each health board.

  Mr. Needham
  (a) The information is set out in the table:

  he will give the estimated date of completion for each project; and if he will break this list down by each health board.

  Mr. Needham
  The answer is as follows:
  367

  (a) Schemes under construction

  Planned Completion date

  Northern Board

  Holywell Hospital, Antrim—refurbishment of fire safety systems

  November 1990

  New 313-bed Acute Hospital, Antrim

  January 1993

  Southern Board

  Provision of a new 72-bed Geriatric Unit and 30-place Day Centre, Armagh

  June 1989

  Eastern Board

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital, Belfast—new block

  October 1989

  Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children— refurbishment of wards

  June 1989

  Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast—provision of a new 72-bed Geriatric Unit

  January 1990

  Western Board

  Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital, Omagh— upgrading of mechanical and engineering services

  December 1990

  (b) Schemes in planning:

  Southern Board

  St. Lukes Hospital, Armagh—provision of new Psychogeriatric Unit

  105 place Adult Training Centre for the mentally handicapped, Armagh

  105 place Adult Training Centre for the mentally handicapped, Newry

  Eastern Board

  Area Store

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast—extension of cardiac surgery facilities

  Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast—Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

  Ulster Hospital, Dundonald—extension of out-patients department; provision of laboratory facilities; X-ray facilities

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital, Belfast—upgrading of engineering services

  Belfast City Hospital—external works

  Edgcumbe Adult Training Centre, Belfast

  Western Board

  Gransha Hospital, Londonderry—provision of 120-bed Geriatric unit

  (c) Other schemes proposed and being considered:

  Northern Board

  Whiteabbey Hospital—72-bed ward unit

  New Antrim Hospital—Laboratory facilities

  Southern Board

  Area Store

  Eastern Board

  Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service—replacement accommodation

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast—new laboratories accommodation

  Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children

  —replacement theatres and intensive care unit

  —refurbishment of Out-Patients and A and E Department

  The priority of all major schemes not under construction is currently under review and it is not possible at this stage to give planned completion dates for these schemes.

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

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

  Year

  Current1 Expenditure (Gross) million

  Capital1 Expenditure (Net) million

  1978–79

  304

  22

  1979–80

  369

  26

  1980–81

  477

  25

  1981–82

  540

  26

  1982–83

  588

  25

  1983–84

  634

  26

  1984–85

  667

  26

  1985–86

  701

  24

  1986–87

  750

  28

  1987–88

  810

  30

  1988–891

  892

  32

  1 Estimated Outturn.

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

  Dr. Mawhinney
  (holding answer 15 May 1989): Information on television advertisements in the form requested is commercially confidential.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Numbers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many higher education students are in(a) full-time and (b) part-time study at (i) universities; (ii) polytechnics and (iii) other higher education institutions; what were the comparable numbers five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; what is his estimate of parallel future numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is shown on the following table. Long-term projections were published in November 1986 in "Projections of Demand for Higher Education in Great Britain 1986–2000". The projections are regularly updated and the most recently published ones are given in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 612.
  369

  Students in higher education in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Academic year beginning

  Universities excluding the OU

  Open University

  Higher education in Polytechnics and colleges

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Actual

  1967

  200

  18

  n/a

  179

  125

  1972

  239

  23

  41

  234

  116

  1977

  281

  27

  66

  229

  1134

  1982

  295

  34

  75

  258

  189

  1987

  305

  41

  86

  303

  233

  1 Relates to 1975.

  n/a = Not applicable. The OU first admitted students in 1970.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has plans to increase the numbers of schools inspectors in connection with the establishment and operation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are no plans to increase the number of Her Majesty's inspectors, but education support grant, made available by the Department, will support an increase in local education authority inspectors. Grant will support the appointment of one additional inspector by each LEA, except ILEA, in 1989–90. It is intended to make further support available up to 1993–94, resulting in a 10 per cent. increase on present numbers.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students were in higher education in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the comparative figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  There were 968,000 students in higher education in Great Britain in 1987–88, compared with 766,000 in 1978–79.

  Higher Education (Principals' Salaries)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the gross salaries of the principals of each of the public sector higher education institutions (i) on 1 January and (ii) on 1 May.

  Mr. Jackson
  By public sector higher education institutions I assume that the hon. Member is referring to institutions funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  The Department collects information each autumn on the salaries of individual directors and principals of PCFC institutions as part of the administration of the teachers superannuation scheme and for statistical purposes. However, publication of the information, which is collected purely for pensions and statistical purposes, would be incompatible with the terms on which it is registered under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Teachers' Pay Award
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects local education authorities to begin paying the 1989–90 teachers' pay award to teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Many teachers are likely to receive their salary increases by the end of May.
  370
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to sign the necessary orders to bring the 1989–90 teachers' pay award into operation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make the order by the end of May.

  Geological Survey
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to reduce or withdraw direct funding to the British geological survey in relation to its core programme of long-term projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Funding of the British geological survey is the responsibility of the Natural Environment Research Council from the council's allocation from the science budget. In my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 7 November 1988 at columns 2–3, he announced that he had made available in 1989–90 an additional £3 million for the NERC for the BGS core programme, with planning additions of £4 million and £5 million for the following two years. He also said that further work was needed to define the survey's core programme, having regard to the priority needs of users and to examine the financial funding arrangements, including the charges for goods and services. This further work will be taken into account in this year's public expenditure survey.

  Animal Encephalopathies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware of any research, past or current into the transmissibility of animal encephalopathies to man; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Research relevant to the possible transmissibility of animal encephalopathies to man has been reviewed in the report of the working party on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, chaired by Sir Richard Southwood, and published in February 1989. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bushloe High School
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the staff and governors of Bushloe high school, Wigston Magna, Leicester, on the key issues in the Education Reform Act 1988; and if he will ensure that there is no delay in the publication dates of certain key information packs, particularly those related to the science curriculum.
  371
  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 19 May, I received a letter forwarded by my hon. Friend from the head teacher of Bushloe high school, supporting the 1988 Act and seeking early delivery of certain National Curriculum Council publications. I will be replying to him shortly. Our aim is to equip schools with the necessary material as far as possible in advance of implementation of the national curriculum requirements. The statutory documents for science were laid before Parliament in March and then distributed to schools. The council's complementary non-statutory guidance for teachers is being printed and should be sent direct to all schools around the end of May.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a provisional esimate of common agricultural policy market support expenditure in 1988–89.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Provisional outturn for class IV, vote 1, is £180 million, which is a saving of £379 million against the supply estimate provision. Excess appropriations in aid of £507 million are being surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. The total expenditure provision, which is-expressed net of receipts for intervention sales and levies etc. in the supply estimate was £1,552 million, while estimated outturn was £1,173 million. The outturn figures on a commodity basis are:

  £ million

  Supply-estimate

  Outturn

  Difference

  Cereals

  350

  195

  -15

  Milk

  295

  124

  -171

  Beef

  244

  190

  -54

  Oilseeds

  176

  178

  +2

  Sheep

  228

  265

  +37

  Sugar

  148

  117

  -31

  Others

  112

  105

  -7

  Total

  11,552

  11,173

  -379

  1 Total figures do not equate because of roundings.

  A number of external factors, such as market prices, levels of production, exchange rates and trade volumes affect expenditure on this vote. The more significant factors affecting expenditure in 1988–89 were the drought in the United States, the increasing strength of sterling and lower than expected cereals yields in the United Kingdom in 1987 and 1988.

  The largest savings were on purchases into intervention of cereals (£147 million), following two successive relatively low United Kingdom cereals harvests, and butter (£107 million). The reduction in butter purchases can be attributed to additional savings to those forecast as a result of the policy changes made to the milk regime in December 1986, which had a greater impact on intervention than had been anticipated. The other major saving in total expenditure arose from £98 million additional receipts for sales out of intervention of cereals, butter and beef. The excess appropriations in aid largely consisted of receipts from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund for depreciation of new stocks on entry to intervention and for depreciation of old intervention stocks which took effect from 1 October 1988.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Goodman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to re-introduce a scheme of de-commissioning of fishing vessels under EEC regulation No. 4028/86; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The reintroduction of a decommissioning grants scheme is one of a number of options which could contribute towards a reduction in the size of our fishing fleet, but before we would be prepared to consider such a step we would need to be satisfied that it would provide value for taxpayers' money and that there were no better alternatives.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how may farmers have sought his Department's advice on hedgerow management in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is not available.

  Business Initiatives
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what future initiatives he is planning to implement the policies outlined in, "Lifting the Burden" and "Building Businesses … not Barriers"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department's current work programme on these policies is set out in paragraphs 6.11.1 to 6.11.7 of the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise". In addition, MAFF is actively participating in the wider initiatives described in "Releasing Enterprise", notably the programme for improving understanding between Government and business and the deregulation rolling review programmes, the first of which was announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs in his written reply of 31 January. More generally, my Department aims to promote efficient and competitive agriculture, sea fisheries and food and drink manufacturing and distribution industries by encouraging enterprise and better regulation, better relationships and better service.

  Deregulation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the initiatives he has taken to implement the policies outlined in "Lifting the Burden" and "Building Businesses … not Barriers"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The contribution of my Department to the Government's deregulation policy since the publication of "Lifting the Burden" and "Building Businesses … not Barriers" is set out in the progress report on deregulation "Encouraging Enterprise" published in May 1987 and in the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" published in November 1988.

  Tobacco (EC)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the
  373
  amount spent by the EEC in subsidising the production of tobacco and in storing and disposing of surplus production; what were the comparable totals in each of the

  Year

  Total Cost

  Premia

  Export Refunds

  Intervention

  (mecu)

  (mecu)

  per cent.

  (mecu)

  per cent.

  (mecu)

  per cent

  1984

  776

  712

  92

  36

  4

  28

  4

  1985

  863

  819

  95

  32

  4

  12

  1

  1986

  782

  734

  94

  32

  4

  16

  2

  1987

  804

  734

  91

  43

  6

  27

  3

  1988

  966

  895

  93

  43

  4

  28

  3

  11989

  1,033

  911

  88

  49

  5

  73

  7

  1 estimate

  The Council of Ministers has approved the Commission's proposal for an agricultural stabiliser system for tobacco, which will reduce prices and premiums for the 1989 and 1990 harvests by up to 15 per cent. If prescribed levels of production are exceeded. We have keenly supported this development, which is in line with our policy of seeking to reduce expenditure on this regime through reorientation of production away from the less-marketable and higher tar varieties.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department was first notified of the existence of a scrapie-like disease occurring in cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Through the animal health surveillance activities and the vigilance and expertise of veterinary scientists at MAFF veterinary investigation centres and the Central Veterinary Laboratory, bovine spongiform encephalopathy was first identified as an entity in November 1986 Research carried out between CVL and the neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh has confirmed that bovine spongiform encephalopathy is similar to a group of spongiform encephalopathies, including scrapie in sheep.

  Tyrrell Committee
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the work currently being undertaken under the auspices of the Tyrrell committee.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Committee was set up to advise on the research work now in progress and on the future priorities for research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. The Government will be considering the committee's conclusions in due course.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence to suggest that spongiform encephalopathies in animals can be identified by post-mortem histological examination prior to the onset of clinical signs in the live animal.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The research consultative committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. David Tyrrell, is currently considering various research projects including
  374
  past five years; and if he has received any proposal from the EEC Commission designed to reduce the expenditure in the tobacco industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  Expenditure on the CAP tobacco regime as requested is as follows:

  a proposal to investigate the relationship between the onset of clinical symptoms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the occurrence of lesions in the brain.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the incidence of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county of England and Wales for the four week period ended 19 May.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is given in the table.

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Avon

  13

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Berkshire

  8

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  14

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  6

  Cornwall

  35

  Cumbria

  6

  Derbyshire

  5

  Devonshire

  41

  Dorset

  49

  Dyfed

  24

  Essex

  3

  Glamorgan South

  3

  Gloustershire

  18

  Gwent

  6

  Gwynedd

  3

  Hampshire

  13

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  9

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Humberside

  3

  Ise of Wight

  5

  Kent

  12

  Lancashire

  5

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  5

  Norfolk

  5

  Northmptonshire

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Oxfordshire

  10

  Powys

  4

  Shropshire

  10

  Somerset

  38

  Surrey

  8

  Staffordshire

  10

  Suffolk

  4

  Sussex East

  9

  Sussex West

  7

  Warwickshire

  3

  Wiltshire

  34

  Yorkshire North

  12

  Yorkshire West

  1

  375
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the existence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United States of America.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am not aware that any cases of BSE have been recorded in the United States of America.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations or procedures are currently in force in the United Kingdom to ensure that meat and bone meal contaminated with the agent responsible for the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom is not exported to other countries for inclusion in cattle rations.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 8 March, at column 533.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received concerning the level of infectiousness of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle prior to the onset of clinical symptoms of the disease.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21 March, at column 513–4.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he, or any of his Ministers, were advised prior to the publication of the Southwood report, by any member of the Southwood committee that 75 per cent. was the appropriate level of compensation in respect of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tests his Department has conducted during the last 12 months on samples of animal protein for use in cattle rations.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Ministry conducts a wide range of analyses on animal protein to assess nutritional values or levels of contamination. Those carried out on protein for use in cattle feeds cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring or testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy is now being conducted on the progeny of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle; and whether he has any intention of introducing controls on the movement of such progeny.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Ministry has taken powers to control the movement of progeny, though I have no plans to use these powers at present. The identities of the progeny of affected animals are being recorded, which will enable further investigations to be made if any of these are subsequently notified as suspect cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Ministry has also accepted the recommendation of the Southwood working party that a study be carried out to determine whether maternal transmission can take place.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases confirmed to date in each of his Departments veterinary investigation centres.
  376
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Before bovine spongiform encephalopathy became a notifiable disease on 21 June last year, histopathological examinations of brains from suspected animals were carried out at the Ministry's central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge, and at other Ministry establishments. Since 21 June last year, diagnoses have been carried out at nine veterinary investigation centres. The number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy confirmed by each centre is as follows:

  Number

  Cambridge

  466

  Carmarthen

  487

  Newcastle

  132

  Polwhele

  663

  Reading

  491

  Shrewsbury

  654

  Starcross

  497

  Thirsk

  552

  Wye

  66

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether bovine spongiform encephalopathy has yet been reported in any European Economic Community member state other than the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No.

  Animal Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those products sold to the general public during the past 20 years derived from animals being treated with pharmaceutical products under an animal test certificate granted under the Medicines Act but prior to the granting of a product licence.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since animal test certificates were introduced in 1971, trials have been authorised in all major animal species. Products from such animals will have been marketed except when it was a condition of the ATC that they should not be.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the recommendations of the Preston report on conditions in slaughterhouses and the action taken by his Department in respect of each.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Copies of the report and of the Government's response, which was announced on 15 October 1987, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Of the recommendations which the Government accepted, meat inspection procedures in non-exporting and exporting plants were broadly aligned by the Meat Inspection Regulations 1987 and the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1987. We have already announced that ante-mortem inspection of animals in non-exporting premises is to be introduced from 1 January 1991. The system of regional liaison meetings envisaged in the report has been established and is proving to be of value.

  In accordance with Community measures which have been adopted since the publication of the Government's response to the report, new arrangements for meat inspection charges are to be introduced from 1 January

  377
  1991. The Community has also agreed on arrangements for collecting information on diseases found at slaughterhouses which should be passed back to those resonsible for production. Detailed rules for the implementation of these arrangements throughout the EC have yet to be determined. The Commission is developing proposals on the duties and qualifications of inspection personnel in slaughterhouses. Further measures to align standards in all plants will be developed, having regard to decisions in Brussels on the arrangements to be adoped for the completion of the single market.

  Ruminant Feedstuffs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to enforce his ban on the inclusion of ruminant derived protein in cattle rations.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 9 March, column 620.

  Icelandic Fish
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to monitor the quality of containered and fresh Icelandic fish imported into the United Kingdom; and to what European Community standards of grading it is subject.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Fresh and chilled fish imported into the United Kingdom is required to be graded in accordance with Council regulation (EEC) No. 103/76 as amended, which lays down common standards covering size and freshness grades for the main species marketed in the Community.

  Our sea fisheries inspectorate checks that fresh and chilled Icelandic fish displayed for sale by auction at ports is in accordance with the Community's grading requirements. Also, the local port health authorities separately monitor the quality of fish for public health purposes.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of fish landed and sold at Lowestoft, Hull, Grimsby, Peterhead and Aberdeen for February, March and April has come from Icelandic container vessels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  While sales of Icelandic container fresh and chilled fish are recorded at Hull and Grimsby, where the bulk of such fish is marketed, the percentage figure requested cannot be derived from available information.

  Porcine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he authorised the sale for public consumption of animal products produced with the aid of porcine somatotropin under an experimental licence.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding reply 18 May 1989]: No. It was a condition of the animal test certificate that no treated animals were to be offered for slaughter for human consumption.

  Veterinary Staff
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vacancies there have been at the veterinary officer grade in each service in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 18 May 1989]: The number of vacancies at veterinary officer grade in the Ministry's state veterinary service in each of the last 10 years is:

  Number

  1980

  50

  (9)

  1981

  40

  (7)

  1982

  37

  (2)

  1983

  42

  (—)

  1984

  47

  (1)

  1985

  61

  (1)

  1986

  58

  (3)

  11987

  21

  (5)

  1988

  21½

  (3)

  1989

  27½

  (7)

  Notes:

  (a) Figures in brackets relate to the veterinary investigation service, which is part of the state veterinary service.

  1 Agricultural Development and Advisory Service economies and improvements in efficiency announced in 1986 included a reduction of posts in the state veterinary service.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sea Pollution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has issued any guidelines to local authorities in England which border onto the Irish sea concerning the reduction of pollution levels in that sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The control of most land-based discharges of pollutants entering the sea is the primary responsibility of water authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to ban all dumping at sea of raw sewage and dangerous chemical wastes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The disposal of waste at sea from ships, other than operational discharges, is licensed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take place only where he is satisfied that disposal will not put at risk the marine environment. Similar responsibilities are exercised by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  In the case of industrial waste, following the second North sea conference in London in November 1987, hosted by my right hon. Friend. the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government's guidance note on implementation of the declaration announced a review of all outstanding licences. Ths review is being carried out jointly by the Fisheries Departments and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to examine whether there are practicable disposal options for the waste on land. So far, 20 approvals for dumping of liquid industrial waste have been reviewed in detail and either withdrawn or the company has indicated a firm intention to terminate. In the case of the remaining 10 approvals, further discussions are now under way into the practicability of disposal on land without causing harm.
  379
  In the case of sewage, licences are granted only for the dumping of sewage sludge, and only in cases where, having considered land-based alternatives, it has been assessed as representing the best practicable environmental option. In line with the ministerial declaration of the second North sea conference, the United Kingdom is implementing restrictions on the loads of persistent toxic substances in sludge to ensure that their total quantities do not exceed the levels discharged in 1987.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for each local authority in England functioning as a social services authority, the amount by which its rate support grant for the year 1989–90 was increased to take account of its need for resources to cope with the increase in child abuse referrals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Rate support grant is unhypothecated and provides support for local authority spending on all services. It is not possible to show how much RSG is paid in support of a particular aspect of social services provision. RSG is, however, distributed in accordance with the Government's assessment of individual local authorities' need to spend, including their need to spend on all aspects of social services. Provision for local authority current expenditure on social services for children aged 0 to 17 for 1989–90 is £1,201 million, an increase of £120 million, 11·1 per cent., over provision for 1988–89. In addition, this year the aggregate of Exchequer grant paid to local authorities includes a specific grant of £7 million to support the costs of training social services staff working with children and their families.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to safeguard playing fields: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Local authorities are generally best placed to make judgments on land use and are primarily responsible for making such decisions in their own area. In exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State for the Environment may choose to intervene but only where issues of more than local importance are involved. Nevertheless, the Government have urged local authorities to take into account the needs of the wider community and to consult local sport and recreation interests before allowing recreational land to be developed.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the notional community charge for the London borough of Ealing; what was the notional community charge for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Illustrative community charges have been published for 1985–86 to 1988–89. The figures for Ealing (disregarding the transitional safety net) are

  £

  1985–86

  172

  1986–87

  164

  1987–88

  278

  1988–89

  234

  380
  The figure for 1988–89 is, of course, affected by rate capping.

  UN Environment Convention
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to implement in his Department the United Nations environment programme global convention.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 10 May at columns 433–4.

  Air Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the resources requirement of local authorities for the new controls over air pollution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The consultation paper issued in December 1986 estimated that the new local authority system would add £0·5 million to current expenditure. This recognised that the system would involve a reallocation of resources within environmental health departments. These departments are already responsible for control of air pollution from most of the processes involved, but have to use the less satisfactory combination of clear air and statutory nuisance controls. In April this year the Department issued a consultation paper on cost revovery charging for integrated polluton control (IPC). This paper proposed introducing a charging system for local authority control of air pollution compatible with the charges to be made by HMIP for exercising IPC. The volume of local authority resouces needed will be reviewed further in the light of responses received.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what preparations are in hand to ensure effective implementation of the new controls over air pollution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The national air pollution inspectorates are already well equipped to implement their part of the proposed new system. As for the local authority part, a committee representing local authority associations and national pollution inspectorates (IPLA) has been set up to provide guidance to local authorities on the proposed new air pollution controls and to ensure consistency of enforcement both among local authorities and between them and the national inspectorates. It will also advise on related matters, such as training. A local authority unit has been set up within HMIP to service IPLA and to prepare authoritative guidance on the control of particular processes.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the resource needs of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for integrated pollution control.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Preliminary assessment of the resources necessary for integrated pollution control suggested that the net increase solely attributable to integration would be in the order of three additional
  381
  inspectors and two support staff. We expect there to be a temporary increase in the workload on the inspectorate whilst the new system is introduced. We will continue to keep under review the objectives of the inspectorate and the level of resources required to fulfil its functions.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an up to date list of the present offices of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, together with the addresses and telephone numbers of the new regional offices and outstations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The present offices of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are as follows:

  Addresses of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution Offices

  Headquarters

  Romney House

  43 Marsham Street

  LONDON SW1P 3PY

  276 3000

  Radioactive Substances Regional Offices

  Mitre House

  Church Street

  LANCASTER LA1 1BG

  0524 382100

  Berkeley House

  Croydon Street

  BRISTOL BS5 ODA

  0271 350412/3

  New Crown Buildings

  Cathays Park

  CARDIFF CF1 3NQ

  0222 825111 Ext 3175

  Air District Offices

  Vincent House

  1st Floor

  2 Woodland Road

  Darlington

  0325 380635

  (Includes sampling laboratory)

  Woodside House

  261 Low Lane

  Horsforth

  Leeds LS18 5TW

  0532 581099

  Sovereign House

  40 Silver Street

  Sheffield S1 2ES

  0742 700459

  1st Floor

  Viking House

  98 Newland Road

  Lincoln LN1 1YY

  0522 512566

  Ansaphone (0522 20968)

  14 Cardiff Road

  Luton

  Bedfordshire LU1 1PP

  0582 424240

  39 Baddow Road

  Chelmsford CM2 0HL

  0245 490473

  Victoria House

  Ormskirk Road

  Preston PR1 1HH

  0772 202322

  Gateway House

  86 Northgate Street

  382

  Chester

  0244 40939

  McLaren Buildings

  2 Masshouse Circus

  Queensway

  Birmingham

  021 236 7674

  3 East Grinstead House

  London Road

  East Grinstead

  West Sussex RH19 1RR

  Brunel House

  2 Fitzalen Road

  Cardiff CF2 ITT

  0222 497702

  Inter City House

  Mitchell Lane

  Victoria Street

  Bristol BS1 6AN

  0272 277732

  Sampling Laboratories

  Sampling and analysis of emissions to air

  Luton

  14 Cardiff Road

  Luton

  Beds LU1 1PP

  0582 34121

  Cardiff

  Spur 'L'

  Government Buildings

  Ty Glas

  Llanishen

  Cardiff CF4 5XW

  0222 766996 Ext 2208

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  The Marches House

  Midway

  Newcastle-under-Lyne

  Staffs ST5 1DT

  0782 711113

  We are currently reorganising the fieldforce of HMIP on an integrated basis to produce a much more effective deployment of resources. A three region structure is being developed covering the north, south west and south east, in each of which there will be a regional headquarters' office. The existing air district offices will initially be retained as outstations of the regional offices.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an update of the current staffing list of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution including administrative support.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 31 March 1989, 194 staff were in post in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Their grades are as follows:

  Number

  Grade 3 director

  1

  Grade 4 deputy director

  1

  Chief inspector (air)1

  1

  Deputy chief inspector (air)1

  2

  Grade 6

  7

  District inspector (air)1

  13

  Grade 7 professional

  30

  383

  Number

  Grade 7 administration

  6

  Inspector (air)1

  24

  Senior scientific officer-Senior professional and technical officer

  16

  Senior executive officer

  6

  Higher executive officer

  12

  Higher scientific officer

  5

  Executive officer

  16

  Scientific officer

  4

  Administrative officer

  22

  Administrative assistant

  8

  Senior personal secretary

  1

  Personal secretary

  216½

  Typist

  22½

  Total

  194

  1 Denotes departmental grade inherited from the Health and Safety Executive.

  2 Includes part-time staff.

  Water Privatisation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are for informing local authorities of their responsibilities for monitoring water quality after privatisation.

  Mr. Howard
  We propose to issue a circular to local authorities in due course.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from manufacturing industries regarding possible effects of privatisation of the water industry on manufacturing industry; what matters of concern they have expressed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Organisations representing manufacturing industry, including the Confederation of British Industry, have commented on a wide range of water privatisation matters, which are being considered in the context of the Water Bill currently before Parliament.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the subject of water charges following privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Howard
  Most of the letters that the Department has received about charges after privatisation have sought clarification about the arrangements that will apply.

  Standing Charges (Water)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he next meets the chairmen of the water authorities, he will urge them to abolish standing charges on water bills for pensioner customers.

  Mr. Howard
  No. It is for the water authorities themselves to determine how they structure their charges.

  Pensioners on low incomes are more appropriately assisted through income support.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following(a) the publication of the Select Committee on the Environment report on toxic waste and (b) the publication of the Government's response to that report; and if he will make a statement.
  384
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None, apart from requests as to the publication date of the response.

  Football Spectators (Identity Cards)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters or other communications he has now received from the general public about the football spectators identity card scheme proposal; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  By 16 May I had received 1,522 letters from hon. and right hon. Members, most of which included letters from their constituents, and 4,020 representations directly from members of the general public, about the national membership scheme.

  Methyl Chloroform and Carbon Tetrachloride
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals his Department has for controls on the production and use of the compounds methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Although methyl chloroform is significantly less damaging to ozone than the chorofluorocarbons (CFCs), its world-wide production is greater than for any single CFC. Production of carbon tetrachloride is lower, but its potential to deplete ozone is greater than that of the CFCs. Review panels on the science and effects of ozone depletion and on the technical and economic implications of controls are due to report later this year to the parties to the Montreal protocol, who will decide at their meeting in London next year on measures to strengthen the protocol, including the possible inclusion of additional substances.

  Methanes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has commissioned any studies on the effects of methane on humans.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department plans to commence a two-year study this year on health risks associated with landfill practices, which will include the effects of methane.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will visit the Barky Thorpe road site in Leicester to discuss proposals to excavate methane generating rubbish.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to visit this site. Such matters are the responsibility of the local planning and waste disposal authorities.

  Bridge Street (Subway)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his Department's responsibilities for the subway under Bridge street.

  Mr. Chope
  The subway is leased by the Department to Westminster city council, which is responsible for its care and maintenance. I understand that the council is considering what works may be needed to stop water seeping into the subway. I will ensure that the h on. Member's concerns about the lack of cleanliness are drawn to the city council's attention.

  Water Authorities (Land)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what area and proportion of the land owned by regional water authorities was compulsorily purchased.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not available centrally.

  Sea Mammals
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has assessed the risk of the bottle-nosed dolphin and the harbour porpoise disappearing as breeding species in British coastal waters; and whether the level of harmful chemicals existing in the bodies of those remaining is the major cause of this decline.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Available evidence based on sightings and strandings of these species, including that compiled by the United Kingdom cetacean group, indicates that there has been a decline in these species in United Kingdom coastal waters. It is not possible to say how far pollutants or other factors such as changes in fish stocks may have contributed to this. The Department of the Environment, together with other interested Departments and agencies, is considering further research to improve our knowledge of the questions.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Recruiting Policies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has made into the effectiveness of the recruiting policies adopted by(a) national savings and (b) other similar agencies.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend keeps Civil Service recruitment policy under continuous review.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in current prices the total proceeds to the Exchequer from privatisation since 1979; and if he will estimate the likely proceeds from the privatisation of the water and electricity industries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The net proceeds for privatisation since May 1979 amount to some £24½ billion. This is £25·7 billion in 1987–88 prices (using the GDP deflator, which is not yet available for 1988–89 prices).

  The proceeds and costs relating to the privatisation of the water and electricity industries will be announced in due course in the usual way.

  Passenger Ferries (Safety)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what balancing charges he expects to recover from the seven passenger ferries which do not comply with the enhanced safety standards, and which their owners have declared to be uneconomic to repair.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I cannot comment on the tax affairs of particular individuals or companies.
  386
  Balancing charges are made to recover tax relief given for depreciation of a business asset which turns out to be greater than the depreciation actually experienced. The need to make such a charge depends on the precise circumstances of each case and, in particular, on whether the disposal value exceeds any expenditure on the ship which remains unrelieved for tax purposes.

  Lloyd's Underwriters
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of indexed securities which fall within the provision of schedule 11 of the Finance Bill was purchased by Lloyd's Underwriters in 1986 and 1987 respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Schedule 11 of the Finance Bill does not apply to securities disposed of or redeemed before 14 March 1989 or to gilts issued before that date. On the information and advice currently available, the Inland Revenue are not aware of any indexed securities purchased by Lloyd's underwriters in 1986 and 1987 which are chargeable to income tax under the provisions of schedule 11.

ENERGY

  Fluid Burning
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what investigations or studies have been carried out by his Department into the Swedish fluid burning systems.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is aware of the main technical features of the Swedish fluidised bed combustion systems. It keeps in touch with the retrofit projects at small older power stations in Spain and the United States of America, and with progress with the Vartan plant in Stockholm, which combines power generation and district heating.

  Amazonian Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his replies,Official Report, 10 April, columns 563–64, if he will make a statement on the results of his meetings with the President of Electrobras on positive British co-operation with Brazil on problems of power station transmission, construction of nuclear power stations between Sao Paolo and Rio, and measures to protect the ecology of the Brazilian Amazonian rain forest.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  At my meeting with the President of Electrobras, I explained the United Kingdom's plans for electricity privatisation and experiences in energy efficiency and offered further discussions with officials in my Department. Electrobras has not yet had an opportunity to take up this offer.

  Potassium Iodate Stocks
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the total cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of its current replacement programme of potassium iodate stocks at power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the CEGB and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Bold Power Station
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy to what extent cannisters containing radioactive waste are stored at Bold power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been advised by the Central Electricity Generating Board that no canisters containing radioactive waste are stored at Bold coal-fired power station. However, on occasions new uncontaminated transport flasks are stored on the site prior to their transportation to nuclear power stations sites.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercal confidentiality, over each of the past five years.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Expenditure by my Department on television advertising over the last five years has been as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  nil

  1987–88

  nil

  1986–87

  116·3

  1985–86

  2·2

  1984–85

  1·3

  1 This includes expenditure of £13·5 million on the flotation of British Gas. All other expenditure in this and prior years is in connection with the energy efficiency campaign.

  Director General of Electricity Supply
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Department of Energy if he will make a statement about the appointment of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Subject to Parliament approving the Electricity Bill, I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to appoint Professor Stephen Littlechild, currently head of the department of industrial economics and business studies at the University of Birmingham, to be the Director General of Electricity Supply. His formal appointment will be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent and will run initially for a period of five years.

  The Director General will have a key role in making the privatised industry function in a competitive, customer sensitive way. He will be responsible for the price control formulae which will govern the supply and transmission of electricity. He will have a particular duty to promote the efficient use of electricity, reflected in a specific condition in the public electricity supply companies' licences. He will have a duty to foster competition and prevent discrimination. He must ensure that the relevant provisions of the Electricity Bill and various licences are observed and, if necessary, modified. He will be responsible for the consumer protection and representation arrangements, and for the electricity meter examining service which will be transferred to the Office of Electricity Regulation from my Department. He will also monitor the non-fossil fuel obligation and the operation of the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales.
  388
  Professor Littlechild has extensive experience of regulatory issues both in the United Kingdom and abroad. He has worked on the regulatory regime for British Telecom, has been a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for six years, and has a wide knowledge of regulatory systems both here and in the United States of America. He is admirably qualified for the post and my right hon. and learned Friend and I are very happy that he has accepted the job.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Cyprus
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds),Official Report, 9 May 1989, column 361, he will take steps to ensure that in future information is collected as to the destination and purpose of assistance given by the United Nations and its agencies to the different communities in Cyprus.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  United Nations agencies generally work through the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. It would not be realistic to seek a breakdown of the benefit of United Nations programmes to the Turkish Cypriot community. However, some programmes specifically directed toward this community are listed on page 121 of the "Register of Development Activities of the United Nations System, 1987," a copy of which is in the Library.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to respond positively to calls for Her Majesty's Government to increase financial support for the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government regard the Commonwealth Development Corporation's operations as an important part of Britain's overall development effort overseas, particularly in relation to the private sector. I propose to increase the level of aid loan support for the CDC by £21 million from £49 million in 1988–89 to £70 million this financial year; £20 million of this will be additional to the existing agreed aid provision.

PRIME MINISTER

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Jarman index is to be applied to Wales in the proposed general practitioners' contract.

  The Prime Minister
  This is currently being discussed between the Welsh Office and representatives of the medical profession.

  Government Information Officers (Code of Ethics)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons she will not publish in the Official Report the text of Mr. Ingham's letter to Ms. Elizabeth Jenkins on a code of ethics for Government information officers.
  389
  The Prime Minister
  It is not my usual practice to publish the official correspondence of members of my staff.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Footwear Imports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what representations he has received from the British footwear manufacturers on proposals for action by the EEC Commission on imports from the far east; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has on the conclusions of the European Commission on the effects on Britain's footwear industry of the imports from the far east;

  (3) what steps he has taken through the Common Market to reduce imports from the far east into Britain.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list in the Official Report the steps he has taken in the last 12 months to reduce imports from far eastern sources that are causing damage to the United Kingdom footwear industry;

  United Kingdom imports of footwear

  £ million

  January

  February

  March

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1989

  1989

  South Korea

  28·3

  28·0

  33·0

  50·9

  76·2

  6·8

  6·8

  6·8

  Taiwan

  51·2

  49·2

  47·1

  69·9

  74·6

  7·7

  7·2

  6·5

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  Footwear defined as Division 85 of Standard Internation Trade Classification Revisions 2 and 3.

  1988 and 1989 data provisional.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list as a percentage, for each of the last 10 available years, imports of footwear into the United Kingdom as a proportion of all supplies to the home market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Imports of footwear into the United Kingdom as a percentage of all supplies to the home market over the last 10 available years were as follows:

  Percentage

  1978

  30

  1979

  34

  1980

  35

  1981

  39

  1982

  42

  1983

  44

  1984

  47

  1985

  46

  1986

  45

  1987

  47

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total level of imports of footwear from Taiwan(a) five years ago and (b) at the latest available date;

  (2) what was the total imports of footwear from Korea (a) five years ago and (b) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Imports of footwear from South Korea in 1984 were valued at £28·3 million; in the period January to March 1989, the latest information available, imports of footwear were valued at £20·4 million. For the
  390
  (2) what steps he is proposing to take to encourage EEC officials to come to a conclusion and take action in relation to cheap imports of footwear to the United Kingdom, particularly from the far east, which were investigated in 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The European Commission has conducted a Community-wide investigation into imports of footwear from Taiwan and South Korea. I have pressed the Commission to report its findings at the earliest possible date and we will consider what action to take immediately the Commission's recommendations are known.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the level of imports of shoes from Korea to Britain for each year from 1984 to 1988 and for each month in 1989;

  (2) what was the level of imports of shoes from Taiwan to Britain for each year from 1984 to 1988 and for each month in 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the following table:

  same periods, imports of footwear from Taiwan were valued at: 1984, £51·2 million; January to March 1989, £21·4 million.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, as part of his consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer, he will make it his policy to consider the introduction of a discount on the market price to encourage licensees and tenants to purchase their pubs.

  Mr. Maude
  We are currently considering a wide range of representations being made on this report and will announce as soon as possible the action we propose to take.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the balance of payments; current, visible and in manufactures, between the United Kingdom and(a) the whole world and (b) the total European Community, for the year 1988; and what was the balance of trade in manufactured goods between the United Kingdom and (i) the whole world, (ii) the total European Community, (iii) each member country of the European Community, and (iv) Japan, for the year 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Estimates on a balance of payments basis for the United Kingdom current account, visible trade, and trade in manufactures, for 1988 are as follows:
  391

  Balance of Payments £ billion

  Balances

  Current account

  Visible trade

  Manufactures

  World

  -14·7

  -20·6

  -14·4

  European

  Not yet

  Community

  available

  -13·5

  -12·6

  The balances of trade in manufactured goods for 1988 were:

  Table 2

  Overseas trade statistics basis1, £ billion (provisional)

  £ billion

  World

  -17·3

  European Community

  -13·4

  France

  -1·1

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  -0·6

  Netherlands

  -1·9

  Federal Republic of Germany

  -8·7

  Italy

  -1·8

  Irish Republic

  +0·5

  Denmark

  -0·1

  Greece

  +0·2

  Portugal

  —

  Spain

  +;0·3

  Japan

  -4·9

  1 Exports fob less imports cif·

  European Mortgage Services
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any complaints from the public concerning the collapse of European mortgage services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: The Department did not itself receive any complaints from the public concerning European mortgage services before the company was wound up in the public interest on 10 May. Since the winding-up order was made, some 80 claims for the repayment of deposits required by the company have been received by the Official Receiver.

  Building Societies
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he remains satisfied that building societies should remain outside the ambit of the Financial Services Act's investor protection provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Any building society which carries on investment business in the United Kingdom must be either an authorised person or an exempted person under the Financial Services Act. In this respect their position under the Act is identical to that of any other person carrying on investment business. Certain requirements imposed by the SIB and the self-regulating organisations recognised under the Act do not apply to building societies—for instance, those relating to financial supervision and the coverage of the compensation scheme. The application of such provisions is a matter for the board or the organisation concerned.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to extend the Financial Services Act's investor protection provisions to cover building societies which become plcs under the Building Societies Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.
  392
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: A building society which becomes a plce and which carries on investment business is subject to the requirement to be authorised or exempted under the Financial Services Act in the same way as any other person carrying on investment business. The application to such societies of particular requirements of the SIB or a relevant self-regulating organisation recognised under the Act is a matter for the SIB or the organisation concerned.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to incorporate into British law article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees freedom of expression and information.

  Mr. Renton
  No. I am satisfied that compliance with the provisions of article 10 of the European convention on human rights presents no difficulty under existing British law.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total(a) design capacity and (b) occupancy of all prisons in England and Wales; and if he will estimate to what length of sentence it would be necessary to go in order to reduce the number at (b) to that at (a) assuming that prisoners were released starting at those serving the shortest sentence and working towards those serving longer sentences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  ON 12 May, the total population of all prison service establishments in England and Wales was 49,100 and the total certified normal accommodation was 44,700—a difference of 4,400. On 31 March 1989, 3,900 sentenced inmates (10 per cent. of the total sentenced population) were serving sentences of six months or less.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the Indian sub-continent have been refused entry to the United Kingdom because they did not have an entry visa since the change in the rules regarding visas in 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  Between November 1986 and March 1989 (the latest month for which figures are available) about 2,400 citizens of countries within the Indian sub-continent were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom where the main or only reason for refusal was the absence of a visa.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has received on the possible effect that private prisons might have on the speed of new prison construction, efficiency, humane conditions and hygiene; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of the submissions made in response to the Green Paper "Private Sector
  393
  Involvement in the Remand System" (Cm. 434) contained evidence about claimed benefits from such involvement. In the course of their study, which led to their report to the Home Office, made public on 1 March, the management consultants Deloitte, Haskins and Sells carried out extensive research to determine whether private sector involvement on the lines envisaged would be viable and beneficial. They concluded that, on certain assumptions and subject to further examination of certain issues, private sector involvement in the operation of new remand centres would be feasible and could provide scope for the cost-effective provision of a better standard of service than that now obtained. As my right hon. Friend announced on 1 March at columns 277–8, further work is now in hand to test those findings.

  Magistrates' Clerks
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to alter the pay scales of magistrates' clerks.

  Mr. John Patten
  The national pay scales for court clerks are a matter for the joint negotiating committee for magistrates courts staff.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been convicted under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available centrally, which may be incomplete, indicates that one person was convicted in 1987 under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. In addition, in 1987 3,160 persons were convicted of drug trafficking offences under section 4(3) and 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Cosmetics (Tests on Animals)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the total number of(a) guinea pigs, (b) mice, (c) rabbits, (d) hamsters and (e) dogs used in cosmetic testing in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is contained in table 2 (cosmetics and toiletries) of the annual "Statistics of Experiments on Living Animals, Great Britain" for the years 1983–86 inclusive (Cm. 9311, 9574, 9839 and Cm. 187), and in table 3 (cosmetics and toiletries) of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1987" (Cm. 515). Before 1987, hamsters were included in the classification "other rodents". Copies of all these publications are in the Library.

  Passports
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will provide extra staff for the Liverpool passport office to clear the current backlog of applications;

  (2) if he will provide extra staff to ensure that people telephoning the Liverpool passport office have their calls answered.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. Additional staff have been employed to help deal with the backlog, and the telephone system has 394
  been improved to increase the number of incoming calls that can be handled. A system of free two-year extensions to the life of expired passports is being introduced to help relieve the immediate problem.

  Police Numbers
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police there were per 1,000 members of the population in 1959 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information, based on establishments of forces in England and Wales on 31 December 1988, is as follows:

  Year

  Police officers per 1,000 of population

  1959

  1·73

  1988

  2·46

  Albany Prison
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long Mr. Dean Miles (2672) has been held in the segregation unit at Albany prison; whether there is any intention of charging him with any criminal offence; and for what reason he is held there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Miles was removed from the segregation unit at Albany prison on 3 May, when he was transferred to Wandsworth prison. It is for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether Mr. Miles will be charged with any criminal offence.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been held in the segregation unit at Albany prison for(a) three months or more, (b) four months or more, (c) five months or more and (d) six months or more.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During the past 12 months, the following numbers of prisoners at Albany have been removed from association with other prisoners in their own interests or in the interests of good order and discipline:

  Period

  Number

  (a) for three to four months

  8

  (b) for four to five months

  2

  (c) for five to six months

  2

  (d) for six months or more

  Nil

  Of these, one prisoner at present in the segregation unit has been held there for just over three months.

  Police (Exchange of Information)
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what general guidance has been given to chief officers of police by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, on the subject of the exchange of information on criminal cases on a police-to-police basis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Home Office circular 17/1989, issued in February, provides guidance to the police on communication with police forces abroad. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  INFORM
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy, when reviewing grant-aid for INFORM, to refuse further funds if there is evidence of material supporting cults and material produced by cults being supplied to inquiriers without the source being disclosed;

  (2) if he will make it his policy, when reviewing grant-aid to INFORM, to refuse further funds if there is evidence of active support of cults by its members;

  (3) if he will make it his policy, when reviewing grant-aid for INFORM, to refuse further funds if there is evidence of its members accepting hospitality from cults;

  (4) what restrictions regarding involvement with cults were placed on its members when agreeing to grant-aid INFORM.

  Mr. Hurd
  The grant paid to INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements) is to assist it in its work of providing impartial information about cults. No formal conditions relating to INFORM's operational methods have been attached to the payment of the grant. INFORM tells me that it has such contact with cults as is necessary to enable it to carry out its functions as a research and information network; such contacts may include accepting hospitality, but INFORM will accept no money from the cults and no members of the Governors or staff may be members of a cult. I do not therefore propose to introduce any formal conditions at this stage, but I shall continue to keep INFORM's performance under review.

  Computers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the functions of the Home Office large major enquiry system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office large major enquiry system is a computer system which was developed to assist the police service in the investigation of major crimes. A typical system consists of three modules: an index of names, addresses, telephones, vehicles categories and sequences of events; a document and action management system; a free text retrieval and typing system.

  Information can be exchanged between systems in different forces by means of tape transfer. The Home Office has set up a central facility which forces can use if an investigation outgrows the capacity of a force system.

DEFENCE

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are seconded from industry; and what their functions in the organisation are.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are four members of staff within the Defence Export Services Organisation who have been seconded from industry.

  (a) The Head of Defence Export Services is responsible for undertaking all necessary actions within Whitehall and in our relations with other governments to encourage and promote the sale of British defence equipment overseas where these offer the prospect of benefits commensurate with the risks involved.

  396

  (b) The strategic planning officer is directly responsible to the Head of Defence Export Services for developing, co-ordinating and monitoring the Defence Export Services Organisation's planning activity and for providing aid, advice and assistance to British industry on strategic planning and on the long-term geographic opportunities in the world defence market.

  (c) The post of international finance adviser exists to enhance the expertise of the Defence Export Services Organisation in the field of international credit arrangements for defence exports and thus contributes to the range of support provided by the Defence Export Services Organisation to overseas sales by the British defence industry.

  (d) The business development adviser's central task is to advise the Defence Export Services Organisation on the methods of identifying and exploiting new opportunities for defence export business.

  Women Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the two women in grades 1 to 4 are in grades 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is one woman in the Ministry of Defence at grade 3.

  Teachers
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to introduce formal union recognition arrangements for locally entered teachers employed on British bases in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Any claim that a union or staff association might make for formal recognition would be considered in the light of the Ministry of Defence's normal policy and criteria.

  Junior Leaders
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on junior leaders who seek a discharge from the armed forces(a) during their period of service and (b) upon attaining their 18th birthday; and if he has any plans to review this policy.

  Mr. Neubert
  Junior leaders have the right to claim their discharge free of cost at any time after 28 days and before the end of six months after joining for duty at their training units. If discharge is not claimed during this period, junior leaders are required to serve for a minimum of six years after their 18th birthdays. However, on reaching the age of 18, they are given the option to reduce their engagements to three years.

  Former junior leaders can apply for premature voluntary release on payment after completing three years service with their adult units. However, those who reduce their commitment to three years will not normally be released until they have honoured their reduced commitment in full.

  There are no plans at present to review this policy, which reflects both the requirement for stability in manning the Army and the need to ensure a return on the high costs of initial training.

  HMS Cardiff
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the weapons carried on HMS Cardiff on her forthcoming courtesy visit to Cardiff.

  Mr. Hamilton
  It is not our practice to disclose the weapons carried on individual HM ships at specific times and locations.

  Naval Accidents
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans his Department has for dealing with an accident involving any naval nuclear weapons in the course of non-operational activities including courtesy calls; and what specific arrangements apply to the port of Cardiff.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 10 May at column 476.

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  Nil

  0·044

  0·005

  0·0005

  0·0005

  Army

  0·100

  0·500

  0·450

  0·5330

  2·8000

  Royal Air Force

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Total £ Million

  0·100

  0·544

  0·455

  0·5335

  2·8005

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Divorce Notifications
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he intends to take any action to prevent divorce notifications in newspapers containing the reasons for a divorce; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  To provide protection against divorces being granted where the facts required by law do not exist, Parliament provided in section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that any person may show why a decree nisi of divorce should not be made absolute. To that end, the evidence and facts pleaded in support of a divorce petition are available to the public either through a hearing in open court or by allowing them to examine the certificate of the decree nisi and the filed evidence. Although the press are restricted in what they may report by the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926, they may among other things, report the names and addresses of the parties and the statutory facts on which the petition relies. Given the policy underlying section 9, it would not be appropriate to impose any greater restriction upon what the press may publish. The Law Commission is, however, reviewing the law relating to the grant of divorce and the Lord Chancellor has made arrangements for this matter to be drawn to its attention.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff have joined the Crown prosecution service in the last six months who were formerly magistrates' clerks.

  University Students
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students at UMIST and University college London are on courses sponsored by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD does not sponsor courses at either university, although it does fund the chair of naval architecture at University college, London, and provides the professor and his supporting academic staff.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  Annual expenditure on television advertising over the past five years is as follows:

  The Attorney-General
  During the latest available six month period, from 1 November 1988 to 30 April 1989, 38 staff commenced employment with the Crown prosecution service having previously been magistrates' clerks.

THE ARTS

  National Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the state of repair of the buildings of the national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  The national museums and galleries which I sponsor provide information on the state of their buildings in their corporate plans which are updated each year and which I and my officials discuss with them.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on staffing costs as a percentage of total running costs in the national galleries and museums.

  Mr. Luce
  As an average, staffing costs for national museums and galleries represented 73 per cent. of total running costs for the year 1988–89.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the education budgets of the national galleries and museums.

  Mr. Luce
  Education is very much a part of the function of the national museums and galleries and one to which they attach great importance. Details of their activities are contained in their trustees' reports, which are publicly available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the acquisition, maintenance and staffing budgets of the national museums and galleries.
  399
  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission quite frequently and on a wide range of subjects which have included matters raised in the commission's May 1988 report on the national museums.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he will take to ensure that museums and galleries have adequate resources for structural maintenance to ensure adequate safeguarding of their collections.

  Mr. Luce
  I recognise this as a priority area and have made substantial increases in the provision for building and maintenance work at the national museums and galleries which I sponsor. The current year's provision of £48 million represents a 50 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979–80. Further increases will bring the figure to £55 million by 1991–92.

  British Theatre Association Library
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a further statement on the rehousing of the British Theatre Association library.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to say that the British Theatre Association has accepted the generous offer of Mr. Robert Holmes a'Court to provide both premises for the association in central London and financial backing to enable it to continue its operation on a firm basis. I was pleased to have been able to provide the association, through the British Library, with professional advice on its library operations, and I have contributed £25,000 towards its transitional costs.

  Museums (Building and Maintenance Costs)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what increase in provision has been made in the last four years for the building and maintenance costs of museums.

  Mr. Luce
  A number of changes have been made in the method of funding the building and maintenance programmes of the national museums and galleries in the last four years but, comparing like with like, there has been a 23 per cent. increase in cash terms in provision over this period.

  Government Contribution
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the Government contribution to the arts in 1989, and what it was in 1979, in real terms.

  Mr. Luce
  In the financial year 1989–90, the central Government programme for the arts will be £439 million. The corresponding figure for 1979–80, at 1989–90 prices, is £316 million.

  Tate Gallery
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Chairman of the Tate gallery to discuss its staffing cost and maintenance budget.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest. I look forward to meeting the chairman and director shortly to discuss the Tate gallery's future plans.

  Museums (Private Income)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will estimate the private income generated by museums in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The national museums and galleries estimate that they will generate over £26 million in private income in 1989–90.

  Tate Gallery of the North
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on staffing and on the acquisition budget available to the Tate gallery of the north in Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  There are 55 staff at the Tate gallery, Liverpool, 33 of whom are warders. The gallery does not operate a separate acquisition budget from that of the main Tate collection.

  Northern Ballet
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the latest information he has on the funding of the Northern Ballet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend for Stockport (Mr. Favell) earlier today.

  Incentive Funding
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what return from the private sector has been achieved as a result of his incentive funding scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) earlier today.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Ministers' Private Secretaries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow,Official Report, column 654, what representations he has received from the First Division Association concerning pressures on Ministers' private secretaries (a) to sanction the release of official information other than by conventional means and (b) to seek means to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial actions.

  Mr. Luce
  None, Sir.

  Morale
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will meet the general secretary of the NUCPS to discuss Civil Service morale.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans at present to meet the NUCPS.

  Agency Employees
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are employed in the Civil Service agencies announced so far.
  401
  Mr. Luce
  There are just over 6,000 staff working in the five agencies which we have already established. A further 36 activities, including three in the Northern Ireland Civil 402
  Service, have been announced as candidates. These cover nearly 200,000 civil servants or about a third of the Civil Service.

SCOTLAND

  "Assessment of Achievement-Twists in the Numbers Game"
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department's library has a copy of "Assessment of Achievement-Twists in the Numbers Game" published in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland on 21 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Yes.

  The assessment of achievement programme's central support unit at the Scottish Council for Research in Education, which is responsible for the sampling design and analysis of results for the 1988 assessment of achievement programme methematics project, responded in a letter to the Times Educational Supplement Scotland of 28 April 1989 rejecting the claims of bias made in the article on 21 April and emphasising, contrary to what the article suggests, that the definition of the population tested was identical for 1983 and 1988. Moreover, in The Scotsman of 25 April 1989, the director of the Scottish Council for Research in Education stated:
  "It would be nonsense in our view to say that there has been no drop in performance".

  The article to which the hon. Member refers is an unwarranted attack on the independence and integrity of reputable research organisations with proven expertise in

  Scottish Central Institutions: Recurrent grants (£ million)1 1

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  11982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  4·235

  4·184

  4·903

  4·378

  5·476

  5·607

  5·742

  25·813

  26·235

  26·462

  6·733

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  3·019

  2·846

  3·214

  3·032

  3·517

  3·606

  3·558

  3·525

  3·582

  3·625

  3·671

  Edinburgh College of Art

  3·002

  3·098

  3·551

  3·532

  3·796

  4·053

  4·018

  4·008

  4·076

  4·055

  4·100

  Glasgow College of Technology3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25·496

  211·147

  211·477

  11·959

  Glasgow School of Art

  2·742

  2·746

  3·201

  3·200

  3·571

  3·624

  3·666

  3·632

  3·751

  23·847

  3·686

  Leith Nautical College4

  1·860

  1·916

  2·230

  2·111

  2·163

  2·204

  1·999

  1·877

  1·897

  0·554

  —

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26·920

  215·830

  316·166

  16·856

  Paisley College of Technology5

  6·745

  6·543

  7·628

  7·583

  9·026

  9·400

  9·559

  29·778

  210·223

  210·500

  10·751

  Queen's College Glasgow

  2·087

  2·053

  2·317

  2·216

  2·646

  2·771

  2·822

  2·499

  2·957

  2·991

  3·123

  Queen Margaret College

  2·879

  2·840

  3·420

  3·376

  3·948

  4·030

  3·989

  4·082

  4·125

  4·142

  4·259

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  7·211

  7·069

  8·039

  7·908

  9·743

  10·463

  10·355

  210·678

  211·262

  212·097

  12·312

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  1·439

  1·356

  1·574

  1·662

  1·703

  1·798

  1·820

  1·809

  1·884

  2·289

  2·479

  Scottish College of Textiles

  1·497

  1·336

  1·540

  1·718

  1·983

  2·202

  2·470

  2·192

  2·481

  22·287

  2·375

  Colleges of Education: Recurrent grants (£ million)1 1

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–831

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Aberdeen College of Education9

  4·168

  3·721

  3·770

  3·742

  3·812

  3·673

  3·558

  3·489

  3·344

  —

  —

  Callendar Park College of Education6

  1·744

  1·693

  1·490

  ·667

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigie College of Education

  1·735

  1·524

  1·505

  1·411

  1·443

  1·332

  1·346

  1·351

  1·421

  1·469

  1·628

  Craiglockhart College of Education7

  1·196

  1·076

  1·187

  ·507

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee College of Education9

  4·047

  3·470

  3·561

  3·338

  3·477

  3·362

  3·274

  3·305

  3·153

  —

  —

  Dunfermline College of Physical Education10

  1·917

  1·845

  2·025

  1·997

  2·105

  2·121

  2·045

  2·053

  2·053

  —

  —

  Hamilton College of Education6

  2·783

  2·420

  2·488

  1·175

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordanhill College of Education8

  10·283

  9·598

  10·368

  11·421

  13·002

  12·040

  11·832

  11·610

  11·749

  10·475

  10·271

  Moray House College of Education

  6·186

  5·469

  5·928

  6·123

  6·641

  6·247

  6·269

  5·984

  6·071

  7·647

  5·456

  Northern College of Education

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·360

  6·339

  404
  assessment and testing. The author appears to misunderstand entirely the objectives and functions of the assessment of achievement programme.

  The hon. Member, as reported in The Scotsman and the Times Educational Supplement Scotland casts aspersions on the work, reputation and uprightness of The Northern college of education and The Scottish Council for Research in Education. The facts of the situation are that the whole of the research process in the assessment of achievement programme—the design and conduct of the survey, the sampling of pupils, the administration of the tests, the marking of the tests and the analysis of the results contained in the published report—was carried out by the Northern college and the Scottish Council for Research in Education. The published report is the work of these independent institutions; it was right to alert both parents and the education community to the interim findings and to make them publicly available as soon as was practicable.

  Central Institutions and Colleges of Education
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give at constant prices the Department's grant towards recurrent expenditure paid to each central institution and college of education for each of the years 1978–79 to 1988–89, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for the central institutions and colleges of education funded by the Scottish Education Department is set out in the tables:
  405

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–831

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Notre Dame College of Education7

  3·822

  3·162

  3·180

  1·617

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St· Andrew's College of Education

  —

  —

  —

  2·146

  4·394

  4·266

  4·186

  4·077

  3·990

  3·844

  3·828

  1 The change between 1981–82 and 1982–83 reflects the reduction in the standard tuition fees paid by home students.

  2 Figures include grant allocated under the Switch to Technology Programme.

  3 Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh and Glasgow College of Technology joined the Central Institution Sector on 1 September 1985.

  4 Leith Nautical College transferred to the local authority sector with effect from 1 August 1987.

  5 Excludes funding for Micro Electronics Educational Development Centre.

  6 College dissolved on 15 September 1981.

  7 Merged to form St. Andrew's College of Education on 15 September 1981.

  8 Includes funding for Jordanhill College School to 31 March 1987.

  9 Merged to form Northern College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  10 Merged with Moray House College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  11 The figures have been expressed at 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of academic staff in each central institution and college of education for each of the years 1978–79 to 1988–89, inclusive.

  Academic Staff Numbers

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–898

  Central Institutions:

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  100

  100

  100

  100

  98

  98

  98

  98

  98

  98

  98

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  140

  148

  153

  156

  157

  160·5

  162·5

  168·5

  171·5

  174·5

  174·5

  Edinburgh College of Art

  107

  107

  109

  106

  106

  106

  104

  104

  102

  100

  100

  Glasgow College of Technology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  343·5

  347·5

  350·5

  350·5

  Glasgow School of Art

  95

  98

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  102

  102

  Leith Nautical College3

  62

  63

  63

  63

  63

  63

  63

  53·5

  —

  —

  —

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  441

  451

  462

  462

  Paisley College of Technology 1

  209

  223

  229

  231·5

  235·5

  239·5

  239·5

  246·5

  250·5

  255·5

  255·5

  Queen Margaret College

  115

  128

  127

  125

  124

  121

  125

  122

  122

  122

  122

  Queen's College, Glasgow

  77·5

  78·5

  78·5

  76·5

  76·5

  76·5

  81

  81

  74

  81

  81

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology2

  265

  267

  272

  275

  277

  280

  283

  292

  301

  311

  311

  The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  64

  64

  65·5

  62·5

  59·5

  59·5

  60·5

  60·5

  60·5

  60·5

  60·5

  Scottish College of Textiles

  46

  49

  50

  51

  52

  53

  53

  53

  54

  55

  55

  Colleges of Education:

  Aberdeen6

  126·5

  112

  118

  117

  106

  103

  92

  87

  —

  —

  —

  Callendar Park4

  42

  41·5

  40·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigie

  45·4

  37·5

  39

  41

  36

  37

  38·5

  40

  39

  39

  39

  Craiglockhart5

  38

  33·1

  35·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee6

  127

  110·5

  102

  92

  84

  82

  77

  73

  —

  —

  —

  Dunfermline7

  72

  72

  67

  68

  56

  51

  47

  45

  —

  —

  —

  Hamilton4

  78

  73

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordanhill

  315

  277

  287

  342

  301

  306

  278

  271

  268

  244

  244

  Moray House

  221

  200

  186

  213

  184

  175

  169·5

  170

  207

  208

  208

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  158

  151

  151

  Notre Dame5

  124

  106

  104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Andrew's

  —

  —

  —

  122

  111

  109

  102

  97

  96

  91

  91

  Notes

  a. The figures for the Central Institutions and from 1982–83 for the Colleges of Education represent the approved complements. The figures for 1978–79 to 1981–82 are the staff in post as reported to the SED by the Colleges of Education.

  1 Excludes staff from the Non-Destructive Testing Centre.

  2 Excludes staff from the Off-Shore Survival Centre and from the Off-Shore Health Centre.

  3 Leith Nautical College transferred to the local authority sector with effect from 1 August 1987.

  4 College dissolved on 15 September 1981.

  5 Merged to form St. Andrew's College of Education on 15 September 1981.

  6 Merged to form Northern College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  7 Merged with Moray House College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  8 Estimate.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of full-time students enrolled at each central institution and college of education for each of the years 1978–79 to 1988–89, inclusive.
  406
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information in respect of the central institutions funded by the Scottish Education Department and the colleges of education is set out in the table:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is set out in the table. Consistent information for the years 1978–79 and 1979–80 is not available.
  407

  Central Institutions

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  832

  843

  896

  938

  983

  1,006

  1,026

  1,059

  n/a

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  1,435

  1,686

  1,773

  1,846

  1,998

  2,022

  2,041

  2,009

  n/a

  Edinburgh College of Art

  807

  843

  894

  950

  973

  976

  979

  975

  n/a

  Glasgow College of Technology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,370

  3,376

  3,352

  n/a

  Glasgow School of Art

  788

  992

  998

  983

  1,021

  1,019

  865

  776

  n/a

  Leith Nautical College

  504

  441

  507

  445

  415

  262

  137

  —

  n/a

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,316

  4,586

  4,753

  n/a

  Paisley College of Technology

  2,316

  2,568

  2,739

  2,886

  2,797

  2,872

  2,869

  2,870

  n/a

  Queen Margaret College

  942

  1,001

  1,021

  1,029

  1,140

  1,225

  1,263

  1,294

  n/a

  Queen's College, Glasgow

  664

  678

  713

  752

  815

  837

  851

  884

  n/a

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  2,420

  2,602

  2,828

  3,025

  3,061

  3,197

  3,261

  3,284

  n/a

  The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  292

  356

  371

  374

  362

  360

  347

  388

  n/a

  Scottish College of Textiles

  439

  422

  413

  497

  607

  598

  625

  643

  n/a

  Figures for central institutions cover vocational and non-vocational courses, and include sandwich course students.

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh and Glasgow College of Technology entered the central institution sector in 1985–86, and Leith Nautical College left the sector in 1986–87.

  Colleges of Education

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Craigie

  200

  198

  202

  201

  208

  215

  237

  283

  267

  Jordanhill

  1,366

  1,300

  1,233

  1,116

  932

  972

  1,020

  1,304

  1,220

  Hamilton

  252

  135

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray House

  800

  739

  705

  583

  508

  512

  536

  1,383

  1,354

  Calendar Park

  184

  127

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunfermline

  390

  341

  298

  246

  202

  178

  163

  —

  —

  St. Andrews

  —

  659

  596

  552

  510

  526

  551

  573

  527

  Craiglockhart

  202

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notre Dame

  556

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  878

  814

  Aberdeen

  624

  563

  488

  437

  385

  401

  433

  —

  —

  Dundee

  321

  297

  269

  235

  218

  230

  266

  —

  —

  Figures for colleges of education for 1980–81 to 1986–87 include overseas students, but exclude students enrolled for non-teacher training courses as this is not available on a consistent basis (there were 788 students on these courses in 1988–89).

  Hamilton College amalgamated with Jordanhill, Calendar Park and Dunfermline with Moray House, Craiglockhart and Notre Dame to become St. Andrews and Aberdeen and Dundee to become Northern.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of part-time students enrolled at each central institution and college of education for each of the years 1978–79 to 1988–89 inclusive, excluding those on in-service courses at colleges of education.

  Central institutions

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  275

  793

  615

  682

  702

  776

  735

  647

  n/a

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  918

  946

  874

  792

  499

  458

  448

  198

  n/a

  Edinburgh College of Art

  88

  95

  202

  941

  134

  766

  730

  726

  n/a

  Glasgow College of Technology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,642

  3,555

  3,052

  n/a

  Glasgow School of Art

  320

  1,165

  1,164

  1,146

  919

  1,163

  1,527

  1,531

  n/a

  Leith Nautical College

  1,839

  1,995

  2,052

  2,083

  2,115

  1,763

  1,233

  —

  n/a

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,845

  4,059

  4,254

  n/a

  Paisley College of Technology

  2,038

  3,942

  4,501

  5,786

  3,768

  2,568

  4,055

  5,110

  n/a

  Queen Margaret College

  587

  729

  650

  748

  647

  501

  925

  1,144

  n/a

  Queen's College, Glasgow

  71

  73

  137

  219

  319

  313

  200

  265

  n/a

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  7,887

  10,772

  12,674

  12,883

  14,559

  13,756

  12,155

  13,285

  n/a

  The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  —

  221

  399

  382

  320

  388

  347

  306

  n/a

  Scottish College of Textiles

  99

  71

  127

  204

  160

  191

  81

  149

  n/a

  The figures cover vocational and non-vocational courses. Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh and Glasgow College of Technology entered the central institution sector in 1985–86, and Leith Nautical College left the sector in 1986–87.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of staff involved in monitoring fraud by employment training scheme management agencies and employers in Scotland.
  408
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the table. Consistent information is not available for colleges of education, or for the years 1978–79 and 1979–80 for central institutions.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: Employment training is delivered through Training Agency area offices each of which has a team, backed up by a professional adviser in the office for Scotland, responsible for the monitoring of monies paid out against contracts. Adequate staff resources are deployed to investigate irregularities and allegations of fraud as necessary.

  Radioactivity (Venison)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list results for the radioactive monitoring of(a) deer, and (b) goats for each year since April 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: There is regular monitoring of venison in dealers' stores on an all-Scotland basis. Goatmeat is not consumed in significant quantities and we have accordingly not thought it necessary to institute a programme of monitoring of this meat.

  The results of the monitoring of samples of venison are set out in the table:

  Venison (Becquerels per Kilo Cs 134 + Cs 137)

  0–500

  500–1,000

  1,000–2,000

  Over 2,000

  1986

  50

  9

  5

  1

  1987

  113

  28

  13

  2

  1988

  100

  4

  1

  —

  These results do not give cause for concern since a person would require to eat more than 40 kg of venison at a level of radiation of 2,000 Bq/kg to come near to the levels at which, under international recommendation, action to restrict consumption should be considered.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he is issuing concerning the safety of eating venison contaminated with radioactivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: The levels of radioactivity in venison, coupled with the relatively low consumption of this meat by the general public, do not warrant advice against eating venison being given to the public at large.

  It is conceivable that a small number of forestry, estate and other workers, might eat large amounts of venison at the top end of the radiation levels identified. Even at that level the risk would be very small indeed. An individual would have to eat about 40 kg of venison a year at a level of 2,000 Bq/kg to come near to the levels of dose at which, under international recommendation, action to restrict consumption should be considered.

  Advice was issued in 1987 and 1988 to forestry, estate workers and others eating venison in quantities considerably higher than average on a regular basis that they might wish to consider eating less venison as a precautionary measure.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what measures he is taking to ensure that radioactive(a) goatmeat, and (b) venison are not entering the food chain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Not much goatmeat is eaten in Scotland, the goat population mainly being kept to supply milk and fibre. Most goats are kept on low ground and inbye land where radioactive caesium from Chernobyl fallout is not readily available for ingestion by grazing animals. Accordingly no specific measures relating to the consumption of goatmeat are considered necassary.

  Regular samples are taken of venison in dealers' stores on an all-Scotland basis so that the levels of radioactivity in venison destined for human consumption may be
  410
  monitored. No unacceptably high levels of radioactivity have been detected in this continuing monitoring programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Short Money
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much Short money has been paid to the Opposition parties in the last five years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total amount of Short money paid to Opposition parties in the past five years is £3,518,503·75p. A breakdown for each year is as follows:

  £

  1984

  454,749·76

  1985

  631,091·00

  1986

  631,598·75

  1987

  597,741·27

  1988

  1,203,322·97

HEALTH

  Homeless People
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to hold any discussions with the Salvation Army and other similar organisations on social service aids for homeless people in Greater London and other major cities who are not temporarily resident in officially designated homeless accommodation.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans at present for discussions, but if the Salvation Army's recent survey has produced information which would help to direct social services more effectively to homeless people in the category described I—and the authorities immediately responsible —would be pleased to have it.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department keeps regarding patient waiting time to see a hospital consultant on referral by a general practitioner.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. Information on waiting times of out-patient referrals is not available centrally.

  Hospital Treatment (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received in-patient treatment at Bolton hospitals in 1988; and what were the comparable figures during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table.

  In-patient cases treated, Bolton District Health Authority, 1982 to 1987–88

  Year

  In-patient cases treated

  1982

  32,598

  1983

  33,471

  1984

  33,837

  1985

  35,289

  411

  Year

  In-patient cases treated

  1986

  35,385

  1987–88

  37,205

  Source: SH3 1982–86.

  SH3a Financial year 1987–88.

  West Lancashire District Health Authority
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in 1988–89 and 1978–79 by the West Lancashire district health authority as in-patients, out-patients and day patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest year for which data are currently available is the financial year 1987–88. The available information is given in the table.

  Patients treated in NHS hospitals, West Lancashire District Health Authority 1978 and 1987–88

  1978

  1987–88

  Percentage change 1978–1987–88

  In-patient cases treated

  13,812

  17,540

  27·0

  Day cases

  1,411

  2,776

  96·7

  New out-patients

  13,181

  19,543

  48·3

  Total out-patient attendances

  56,398

  88,960

  57·7

  Source: SH3 1978

  SH3a Financial year 1987–88.

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he is making for the early provision of soluble CD4 for patients with HIV once the outcome of trials taking place in the United States is known.

  Mr. Mellor
  No medicinal produce may be marketed in the United Kingdom until licensed. Where this is justified on public health grounds a licence application may be fast tracked to ensure that the product can be marketed with minimum delay if it meets licensing requirements.

  Drug Prices
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Acupan Tabs, 90 and 30, (ii) Adalat 5mg Caps, 100 and 40, (iii) Adalat 10mg Caps, 100 and 50, (iv) Adalate 10mg Caps, 90, (v) Adalat AR 20mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (vi) Adalat LP 20mg Tabs, 30, (vii) Adalat Retard, 50, (viii) Aldactone 100mg Tabs, 100 and 20, (ix) Aldomet 250mg Tabs, 100, (x) Aldomet 500mg Tabs, 100, (xi) Allegron 10mg Tabs, 100 and (xii) Allegron 25mg Tabs, 100; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Alrhumat 50 mg Caps, 100, (ii) Amoxil 500 mg, 100, (iii) Androcur 50 mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (iv) Artiflam 200 mg Tabs, 60, (v) Avlocardyl Ret Caps, 28, (vi) Azantac 150 mg Tabs, 60 and 30, (vii) Becotide, 1, (viii) Benortan Suspension, 300 ml, (ix) Blocadfren 10 mg Tabs, 100, (x) Brufen 400 mg Tabs, 100,
  412
  (xi) Canestan Cream (Blue Pack), 30 g and (xii) Canestan Cream (Red Pack), 20 g; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Capoten 25 mg Tabs, 90 and 45, (ii) Capoten 50 mg Tabs, 90 and 45, (iii) Cinobac 500 mg Caps, 14 and 20, (iv) Cinopal 300 mg Caps, 20 and 24, (v ) Clamoxyl 250 mg Caps, 500 and 12, (vi) Clamoxyl 500 mg Caps, 100 and 12, (vii) Clinoril 100 mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (viii) Clinoril 200 mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (ix) Clomid Tabs, 30 and 10, (x) Cordarone 200 mg Tabs, 30 and 60, (xi) Corgard 80 mg Tabs, 28 and 30 and (xii) Corlan Pellets 2·5 mg; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (4) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Danatrol 200 mg Caps, 100, (ii) Dolobis 250 mg Tabs, 100 and 30, (iii) Eusaprim Forte Tabs, 100 and 200, (iv) Eusaprim 480 mg Tabs, 100 and 250, (v) Feldene 10 mg Caps, 60 and 20, (vi) Feldene 20 mg Caps, 30 and 10, (vii) Fepron 600 mg Tabs, 100 and 75, (viii) Fluanxol 0·5 mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (ix) Fluanxol 1 mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (x) Froben 50 mg Tabs, 100 (xi) Froben 100 mg Tabs, 100 and 60 and (xii) Gaviscon Liquid 500 ml and 250 ml; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (5) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Gyno-Canesten Pess, 12, (ii) 11aycion 0.25mg Tabs, 30 and 20, (iii) Hirudoid Gel, 40g, (iv) Hydergine 1·5 mg Tabs, 100 (v) Imodium 2mg Caps, 30 and 20, (vi) lmuran Tabs, 100 and 50, (vii) Indera L.A. 160mg Tabs, 28 and 56, (viii) Inderetic Caps, 100 and 42, (ix) Indocid 25mg Caps, 100 and 30, (x) Indocid 50mg, 100, (xi) Indocid Suppositories, 10 and (xii) Kemadrin 5mg, 500 and 25; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (6) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Kemadrine 5mg Tabs, 500 and 40, (ii) Kinidrin Durettes 250mg, 100, (iii) Lioresal Tabs, 100 and 50, (iv) Locoid Cream, 30g, (v) Locoid Ointment, 30g, (vi) Lomotil Tabs, 100 and 12, (vii) Loniten 5mg, 100 (viii) Modamide 5mg Tabs, 30 (ix) Modapar 125mg Caps, 100 and 60, (x) Modapar 250mg Caps, 100 and 60, (xi) Moducren Tabs, 28 and 30 and (xii) Motilium 10mg Tabs, 30 and 100; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (7) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Natrilex 2·5mg Tabs, 30, (ii) Negram 500mg Tabs, 56 and 40, (iii) Nerisone Pommade, 30g, (iv) Orap 4mg Tabs, 100 and 20, (v) Otosporin Drops, 5m1 and 10m1, (vi) Panoxyl 5 per cent. Gel, 40g, (vii) Panoxyl 10 per cent. Gel, 40g, (viii) Parlodel 2·5 mg Tabs, 100 and 30, (ix) Parlodel 10mg Tabs, 100 and 30, (x) Pevaryl Cream, 30g, (xi) Prothiaden 75mg Tabs, 28 and (xii) Prothiaden 25mg Tabs, 100; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (8) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Proviron 25mg Tabs, 50, (ii) Rivotril 2mg Tabs, 100, (iii) Salazopyrin 0.5mg Tabs, 100, (iv) Salazopyrin E.N. Tabs, 300, (v) Septrin Tabs 400/80mg, 500 and 10, (vi) Septrin Forte Tabs, 100, (vii) Septrin Paed

  413
  Susp, 100ml, (viii) Septrin Adult Susp, 100ml, (ix) Serc Tablets, 120 and 100, (x) Sinemet 100 Tabs, 100, (xi) Stromba 5mg Tabs, 56 and 10 and (xii) Stugeron Forte, 100 and 20; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (9) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Tagamet 200mg Tabs, 120 and 50, (ii) Tagamet 400mg Tabs, 60 and 25, (iii) Tegretol 200mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (iv) Tegretol 400mg Tabs, 100, (v) Tildiem 60mg Tabs, 100 and 30, (vi) Timoptel 0·25 per cent., 5ml, (vii) Timoptol 0·5 per cent., 5ml, (viii) Tinset 30mg Tabs, 25, (ix) Tofranil 10mg Tabs, 100 and 60, (x) Tofranil 25mg Tabs, 100, (xi) Trandate 100mg Tabs, 56 and 75, and (xii) Trandate 200mg Tabs, 56 and 75; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (10) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Trasicor 80mg Tabs, 100 and 40, (ii) Trasicor Ret 160mg Tabs, 28, (iii) Triludan Suspension, 200ml, 120ml, (iv) Ventolin Inhaler (boxed), 1, (v) Ventolin Pouch, 1, (vi) Vermox 100mg Tabs, 6 and 10, (vii) Vermox Suspension, 30ml, (viii) Viskaldix Tabs, 28, (ix) Voltarene 25mg Tabs, 100 and 30, (x) Voltarene 50mg Tabs, 100 and 30, (xi) Voltarene LP 100mg Tabs, 28 and 15, and (xii) Voltren Ret 100mg Tabs, 28 and 10; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available;

  (11) what is the purchase price paid by the National Health Service for (i) Zaditen 1mg Caps, 60, (ii) Zantac Tablets 150mg 60 and 20, (iii) Zarontin 250mg Caps, 50, (iv) Zovirax 200mg Tabs, 25, (v) Zyloric 100mg Tabs, 100 and 50, (vi) Zyloric 300mg Tabs, 30 and 28 and (vii) Zyloric 100mg Tabs, 25; and how much in cash terms of each drug was dispensed by retail pharmacy contractors in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The price paid for medicines prescribed by their proprietary name and dispensed by pharmacy contractors is the manufacturer's list price. These prices are published from time to time in the British National Formulary, a copy of which is in the Library. Where no list price is available the price paid is the price which the pharmacist has had to pay.

  The net ingredient cost of prescriptions written using the names of the products in respect of which information is requested and dispensed by pharmacy contractors in 1987 is contained in a list which has been placed in the Library.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions have been taken as to whether speech therapy services will be classed as core services; and whether such decisions will be made centrally.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply on 7 February to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) at column 640.

  GPs (Home Visits)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home visits he estimates are made by the average 414
  general practitioner; to what extent he expects that number to increase as a result of revision of the general practitioners' contract; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested, based on the small sample used for the general household survey, is estimated as follows:

  England

  Average list size

  Number of Home Visits

  1979

  2,286

  1,320

  1987

  2,020

  1,290

  Although under the new contract for GPs we expect patients aged 75 and over to be visited annually as part of their general health assessment, this requirement need not be carried out by the GP personally.

  Prescribing Budgets
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds he intends to make available in 1990–91 to the regional health authorities to cover the administrative and computer technology costs of introducing indicative prescribing budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have made quite clear that we will meet the necessary additional costs of implementing the indicative prescribing budget scheme.

  It is premature to state what funding will be made available to regional health authorities since we are engaged in discussions with various interested parties about how the scheme should be implemented.

  Snapethorpe Hospital, Wakefield
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department instructed the Wakefield district health authority to draw up plans for the building of houses on the site of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield.

  Mr. Freeman
  I know of no such plans. If permanent closure of Snapethorpe is agreed by Ministers it will be for the district health authority in consultation with the regional health authority, to decide upon its disposal or future use.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the site value of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield.

  Mr. Freeman
  The district and regional health authorities, in consultation with the district valuer, and taking account of future use potential, are responsible for assessing the site value.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations and individuals have objected to the proposed closure of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details are given in the document "Responses to the Consultation Document, Officer Comments and Recommendations" put to the 30 September meeting of Wakefield health authority. This is available from the health authority.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of patients treated in Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield, in each year since 1979.
  415
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Snapethorpe Hospital—Deaths and Discharges

  Chest Diseases

  Geriatrics

  Mental Illness

  General Medicine

  Pre-Convales-cent

  Total

  1979

  288

  —

  22

  13

  26

  349

  1980

  245

  33

  16

  —

  —

  294

  1981

  187

  46

  25

  —

  —

  258

  1982

  190

  —

  35

  —

  —

  225

  1983

  182

  33

  —

  —

  —

  215

  19841

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  1 to 31 March 1984

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department instructed the Wakefield district health authority to withdraw from discussions with the Wakefield metropolitan district council regarding the possibility of a scheme of joint use of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to discuss with Wakefield district council its proposals for the future use of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield, before any decision is made by his Department regarding its closure.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am aware that the district health authority has had meetings with the district council and will have taken the council's views into account in putting forward closure proposals. I have however, already agreed to meet the hon. Member to discuss the matter.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to visit Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield, before any decision is made by his Department regarding its closure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The hon. Member's suggestion is noted. I shall consider it on its merits before any final decision is taken.

  National Health Service Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide figures for National Health Service capital expenditure in each year since 1975 in 1988 prices, excluding the effect of asset disposal and realisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  NHS capital expenditure (England)—Net of Capital Receipts at 1988 prices

  £ million

  Year

  Net of capital receipts at 1988–89 prices1

  1974–75

  967

  1975–76

  1,039

  1976–77

  998

  1977–78

  778

  1978–79

  800

  1979–80

  765

  1980–81

  875

  1981–82

  972

  1982–83

  944

  1983–84

  927

  1984–85

  974

  1985–86

  980

  416

  Year

  Net of capital receipts at 1988–89 prices1

  1986–87

  966

  1987–88

  899

  1988–89

  874

  1989–90 (plan)

  910

  1 As measured by GDP deflator.

  Infant Care Programme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to district and regional health authorities about the provision of breathing monitors and scales for mothers involved in the care of the next infant programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has not issued specific guidance to regional and district health authorities about the provision of breathing monitors and weighing scales for mothers involved in the care of the next infant (CONI) programme, which is run by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths. However, the third report of the maternity services advisory committee on the care of the mother and baby, which we have commended to health authorities, advises that, in regard to babies considered to be at risk of unexpected death, detailed attention should be paid to weight gain and to early symptoms of illness or signs that something may be amiss.

  North Devon District Hospital
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration has been given to the impact on continuity of patient care of the proposed closure of 25 acute psychiatric beds at weekends within the North Devon district hospital; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the projected savings resulting from the proposed closure of 25 acute psychiatric beds at weekends with the North Devon district hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No decision on this management option has been taken by the North Devon health authority.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to introduce five-day-aweek wards similar to those proposed at the North Devon district hospital in other parts of the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the possibility of converting one or two wards in the North Devon district
  417
  hospital to a five-day week is an option that is being examined, but on which no management view has yet been taken. Local bed management is a matter for individual health authorities.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received concerning the legality of charges imposed on patients since 1 May 1989 by North Devoon health authority for hospital transportation to take patients to hospital for treatment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the legality of car parking charges to be imposed at the North Devon district hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. It is for health authorities to take appropriate legal and other professional advice on local management decisions. However, no charge is made for the transportation of patients to hospital if it has been prescribed by a doctor as clinically necessary.

  Bexley Health Authority
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Bexley health authority worked with Bexley London borough in ensuring that the contract to provide accountancy services to Social Policy Management Services Limited, awarded to Auckland Goddard Hampson and Swain (Chartered Accountants), was put out to tender.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decision on accountancy services is entirely a matter for Social Policy Management Services Ltd.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have been recorded annually in recent years of women under the age of 20 years from cervical cancer.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths from cervical cancer1 of women under the age of 20 years in England and Wales, 1978–87

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1978

  —

  1979

  —

  1980

  —

  1981

  —

  1982

  1

  1983

  —

  1984

  —

  1985

  —

  1986

  1

  1987

  —

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 8th and 9th revision code 180.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stretford on 4 May,Official Report, column 230, what estimates he makes of the reduction of deaths from cervical cancer if the frequency of cervical smears was reduced from five years to (a) three years and (b) two years; what are the cost implications of this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimates made by the Department of Health cancer screening evaluation unit would suggest 418
  that, in comparison with screening every five years, cervical smears taken every three years between the ages of 20 and 64 could reduce by some further 7 per cent. the number of deaths which would otherwise occur from cancer of the cervix at an additional cost of somewhat over £22 million per annum. Screening every two years would reduce the number of deaths by an additional 1 or 2 per cent. at a further additional cost of some £28 million. These estimates are based on a hypothetical 100 per cent. acceptance of screening. Since we know that the majority of women who die from cervical cancer have never been screened, we have recommended to health authorities that increasing the proportion of women being screened regularly should take precedence over increasing the frequency of screening.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies are being undertaken to monitor the incidence of the retrovirus human T cell lymphotropic virus-1 in blood supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a rare infection in this country. The national blood transfusion service is preparing for a study to monitor the prevalence of this infection in blood donations. As part of these preparations, an investigation of the methods available for identifying the infection is underway.

  Drug Supplies
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the total number of complaints registered against representatives of pharmaceutical companies in each of the last five years in relation to financial and other incentives offered to general practitioners for the prescribing of specific products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. Pharmaceutical industry sales promotion conduct is regulated by the industry's code of practice. Complaints alleging unacceptable conduct are considered by the code of practice committee of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). The Royal College of Physicians has issued advice on "The Relationship between Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry".

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is yet in a position to announce the composition of the NHS policy board and the NHS management executive proposed on the White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am announcing today that the members of the board, which I shall chair, will be:

  Sir Roy Griffiths (Deputy Chairman).

  The Minister of State for Health.

  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health.

  Sir Donald Acheson Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health.

  Sir James Ackers, Chairman of West Midlands Health Regional Authority.

  Professor Cyril Chantler, Professor of Paediatric Nephrology at Guys Hospital.

  Mrs. Julia Cumberlege, CBE, Chairman of South West Thames Regional Health Authority.

  419

  Sir Graham Day, Chairman of the Rover Group and Cadbury Schweppes.

  Sir Kenneth Durham, Chairman of Woolworth holdings and Deputy Chairman of British Aerospace.

  Sir Christopher France, CB, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health.

  Mr. Duncan Nichol, CBE, Chief Executive of the NHS Management Executive.

  Sir Robert Scholey, CBE, Chairman of British Steel.

  The policy board will determine the strategy, objectives and finances of the NHS in the light of Government policy, and will set objectives for the management executive and monitor whether they are achieved.

  The NHS management executive members will be:

  Mr. Duncan Nichol, CBE. Chief Executive

  Mr. Graham Hart, CB, Director of Operations

  Mr. Michael Fairey, Director of Information and Review

  Ms. Sheila Masters, Director of Finance

  Mr. Peter Wormald, Director of Personnel

  Dr. Ron Oliver, CB, Medical Director

  Miss Patsy Wright-Warren, Nursing Director

  Mr. Bryan Rayner, CB, Director, Family Practitioner Services

  Mr. Idris Pearce, CBE, Estates Adviser

  The executive will deal with all operational matters relating to both the hospital and community health service and the family practitioner service, within the strategy and objectives set by the policy board.

  "Working for Patients" emphasised the need to distinguish in our central management of the NHS between strategy—making clear the direction the Government want the service to follow—and the operational tasks involved in putting that strategy into practice. In other words, it is Ministers' job to set a framework of policies, priorities and resources and, within that, to leave managers to manage and to answer for their performance.

  This is reflected in the different roles of the policy board and the management executive. I am delighted that, as chairman of the policy board, I shall be able to draw on such a wide range of experience and achievement and that the chief executive of the management executive will lead an equally strong team.

  Syringe Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications of the final report of the evaluation of 14 experimental syringe-exchange schemes.

  Mr. Mellor
  The evaluation points to some encouraging features of schemes, in particular the ability of some to attract significant numbers of injectors—many of whom have not been in contact with services before—and to help regular attenders make or sustain changes in risky behaviour. However, the research also shows that schemes have a high turnover of clients and are less good at attracting women, younger injectors and those with a short history of injecting drug misuse. They tend to attract those injectors who have already made, or are motivated to make changes in their behaviour.

  We have concluded that exchange schemes and other measures to make sterile injecting equipment more readily available—such as, where appropriate, sales by pharmacists and provision by general practitioners in the context of treatment of drug misusers—can be potentially valuable components of the wider-ranging strategy we need to prevent the spread of HIV-infection amount and from
  420
  drug misusers. This strategy must also include the development of readily accessible advice and treatment services where drug misusers can get help with drug problems, and with reducing their risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV-infection through drug using or sexual behaviour. At the same time, we continue to attach the utmost importance to tackling the misuse of drugs itself, both by the interdiction of supplies and through effective education and information to discourage young people from starting to take drugs.

  We have increased to over £14 million the funds available to health authorities from 1989–90 for services for drug misusers, including measures to prevent the spread of HIV-infection, in order that such a strategy may be implemented. In Scotland and in Wales £2 million and £1·6 million respectively are being provided for this purpose. We will circulate the key findings of this recent research in order that they may be taken into account in planning and developing services.

  Health Education Council
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the budget of the Health Education Council for each year from 1978–79 to 1986–87, expressed as actual expenditure and as a percentage of total National Health Service spending for England.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Health Education Council budget

  Financial Year

  Actual expenditure

  1As percentage of total NHS spending for England

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  3·7

  0·06

  1979–80

  4·5

  0·06

  1980–81

  5·0

  0·05

  1981–82

  6·6

  0·06

  1982–83

  8·6

  0·08

  1983–84

  9·3

  0·08

  1984–85

  9·6

  0·07

  1985–86

  10·1

  0·07

  1986–87

  10·15

  0·07

  1 Total NHS spending for England has been taken as the total revenue and capital expenditure of regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals plus the expenses of the Dental Estimates board and the Prescription Pricing authority. The administrative expenses of family practitioner committees and their total expenditure on family practitioner services (net of patients' charges) have also been included. Figures used represent annual outturn figures, not adjusted for inflation.

  Desiccated Liver Powder
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether desiccated liver powder is categorised as a food supplement or a pharmaceutical product; and whether he will make a statement about the importing of desiccated liver powder in relation to the Imported Food Regulations 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The decision whether desiccated liver powder is regarded as a food supplement or a pharmaceutical product for purposes of the imported food regulations rests with the port health authority responsible for the application of the regulations

  421
  at the port of entry. It is for the authority to make this decision on the basis of the facts which are available to it at the time of import, relating to the end use of the powder.

  Assistance
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state by rate of population per 1,000 by age group, for years 1980 to 1989, the number of cases of assistance to persons during the year provided by (i) Calderdale, (ii) Bradford, (iii) Kirklees, (iv) Leeds, (v) Wakefield, (vi) Oldham and (vii) Rochdale for(a) installation of telephone and attachments, (b) payment of telephone rentals, (c)installation of other communications equipment, (d) installation of television, (e) payment of television licence or rental, (f) supply of radio, (g) supply of personal aids, (h) adaptation to non-local authority property and (i) holidays.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Tables showing available information in respect of year ended 31 March 1980 to 31 March 1987 have been placed in the Library. Information in respect of subsequent years has not been collected centrally.

  Gynaecologists
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Trent regional health authority on the wording used in the advertisement for two consultant gynaecologists placed by the authority in the Lancet of 8 April.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: No. but officials have drawn to the attention of the regional health authority the guidance issued in 1975 and 1979 by the then Chief Medical Officer concerning advertisements for consultant posts in obstetrics and gynaecology.

  NHS Review
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to the chairman of the Wakefield family practitioner committee on requests made to the chairman of the family practitioner committee to discuss the White Paper, "Working for Patients;" and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: None, although the chairman did send me copies of a recent exchange of correspondence with the hon. Member. I note that the chairman offered to arrange a meeting between representatives of the committee and hon. Members representing local constituencies to discuss the future implementation of the White Paper, which is the task assigned to the committee. I hope that hon. Members will take up that offer and I am writing to the chairman to encourage him to pursue it.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department received a request for copies of the White Paper, "Working for Patients," to be supplied to members of the Wakefield family practitioner committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]; Copies of the White Paper were sent to all family practitioner committees at the time of publication. It was for each committee to arrange its own internal distribution and to obtain any additional copies it might need.
  422
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received from the Wakefield family practitioner committee any proposals for a health profile giving details of demands on services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: No. We have recommended that all family practitioner committees should prepare a health profile of the area in collaboration with the district health authority as part of their own planning process. I understand that such a document in respect of Wakefield is in the course of preparation. We do not ask that the document should be sent to the Department except at the time of a performance review.

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

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 May 1989 c. 80–81]: I now understand that the infertility treatment available for a limited number of patients in north Devon is gamete intra fallopian transfer (GIFT) and not in vitro fertilisation (IVF) as previously stated. I am sorry we did not get this right.

TRANSPORT

  Sir Keith Bright
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce the terms on which Sir Keith Bright resigned from London Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  The terms are still under discussion.

  Roads Provision
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now publish his plans to involve the private sector in roads provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have today published, with the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, a consultation paper entitled "New Roads by New Means—Bringing in Private Finance". It covers England, Scotland and Wales. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are committed to providing a transport infrastructure suited to the needs of a modern economy. We showed that commitment in the plans contained in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", published on 18 May, which dealt with roads in England. The White Paper was largely concerned with publicly-financed road schemes, but the private sector is playing an important and growing role in providing transport infrastructure. I see great potential opportunities for the private sector to finance and build more of our roads and bridges, complementing our greatly expanded road programme. My aim is to make full use of the innovation, enterprise and management efficiency of the private sector in improving the road network and in providing better value for money for taxpayers and road users. Our consultation paper proposes a way forward.
  423
  We have already started. From the international partnership on the Channel tunnel to local partnerships with councils on road schemes, the initiative and flair of the private sector have been making their impact. We already have an example of the successful involvement of private finance in a major national road scheme. The Dartford-Thurrock bridge, the first privately financed road scheme this century, is our starting point. The private sector is also tendering for the second Severn bridge.

  This is a new field. There have been uncertainties for potential promoters. The consultation paper addresses these issues. For example, it describes a new approach by the Government to the question of additionality—the possible effect of private financing on the Government's total roads expenditure, which has been of considerable concern to the private sector. We give the assurance that we will not subtract the cost of privately financed roads from public sector provision on a scheme-by-scheme basis. This decision on additionality reinforces our belief that private sector schemes will provide the opportunity for more roads than would otherwise have been built.

  The Government are concerned to achieve the most cost-effective provision of roads. Where appropriate, this will involve comparing privately financed schemes with their public sector alternatives. In future, however, no such comparison will be required unless the road scheme concerned is already in the programme or enjoys a high degree of monopoly.

  The consultation paper proposes measures to make it easier for roads financed by contributions from developers to be built. It also concludes that new procedures are needed to authorise privately financed tolled roads. It makes detailed proposals for those new procedures, which would require primary legislation.

  Privately-financed tolled roads will take the form of concessions, broadly similar to those for the Channel tunnel and the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. I would usually grant a concession after a competition. Competitions will help to ensure the best value for road users. In addition, EC law will require that concessions should be the subject of competitions. For these reasons, exclusive rights will not usually be conferred on promoters; but commercially confidential innovations will be protected, and originators of ideas will be given a place on the short list for the competition.

  There will he an order-making procedure to authorise the roads and the tolls to be charged. The promoter would ask me to make the necessary orders. Where there are objections, there would be public inquiries to ensure that full regard is paid to the environment, and to protect the rights of affected individuals. The promoter would consult widely before applying for the required orders. All relevant orders would be considered at the same inquiry.

  The Government will keep up the momentum of the private finance initiative. "New Roads by New Means" announces our intention to establish an early competition for a privately financed scheme to increase road capacity in the Birmingham-Manchester corridor.

  I can also announce today that I intend to hold a competition for the Birmingham northern relief road.

  "New Roads by new Means" is a consultation document. We are asking for comments by 14 July. I want to encourage people with ideas to come forward and help me to take this exciting initiative forward, and so to improve the road network still more for industry and motorists.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Transport's planned expenditure on commercial television advertising airtime in 1989–90 is £1·7 million. This relates to our campaign against drinking arid driving.

  Our objective in buying airtime is to obtain equivalent "reach" in respect of our target audience in each of the television areas. Expenditure is proportionately higher in the south (the areas covered by Television South, London Weekend Television, Thames Television and Television South West) because the cost of airtime is higher.

  I have already provided information on the Department's expenditure over the past five years, during which time the same principle of equivalent "reach" has applied.

  Tankers (Kilbrannan Sound)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions his officials have made for allowing stricken tankers into Kilbrannan sound: what consultations were conducted concerning this matter with locally based commercial fishermen who fish the sound, before his officials took their decision; which other interested parties were consulted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, no particular areas around United Kingdom are designated by the Department to be safe havens for stricken tankers and if a tanker is seriously damaged and needs shelter it will seek the nearest available. The Department holds general navigation details of the United Kingdom coast and such environmental details as is available. In the event of an incident it will advise and consult to the extent that time will allow all relevant local authorities before agreeing to or taking action to prevent, the tanker's intended movements.

  Street Works (Horne Report)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to introduce legislation regarding street works arising from the Home report and related initiatives.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As soon as there is suitable opportunity. Detailed proposals have been prepared and an opportunity is currently being given to interested parties to comment on them.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider giving the full uprating to those still receiving transitional additions to their benefits.
  425
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider giving the full uprating to those still receiving transitional additions to their benefits.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider giving the full uprating to those still receiving transitional additions to their benefits.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider giving the full uprating to those still receiving transitional additions to their benefits.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider giving the full uprating to those still receiving transitional additions to their benefits.

  Mr. Moore
  I have no plans to do so. However, the House will know that when the additional help that we are giving to pensioners is introduced this autumn it will not affect the amount of transitional protection they are receiving.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Leeds and (b) Wakefield lost transitional payment benefit from April 1989 for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 6 March at column 445.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people last month experienced the termination of transitional payment which they had previously received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information will not be available for housing benefit transitional payments until the final closing date of 30 June 1989 has been reached and all applications have been received, assessed and payments made which are backdated to April 1988. To date, 184 people are no longer receiving transitional payments because their capital has increased to over £8,000 and payments have ceased for 72,234 people whose transitional payments were £2·00 per week or less, although their overall benefit income will have increased at April 1989.

  An estimated 610,000 income support claimants ceased to need transitional protection following this year's benefit uprating. These people now receive more benefit income by way of income support than they got through supplementary benefit.

  Benefits
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans for introducing new technology wall-mounted cash dispensers for benefit claimants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plans but the Department will continue to examine whether such methods offer advantages over existing methods of payment.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet benefit claimants in Nottingham, North to discuss the operation of the benefits system.
  426
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what resources have been committed by his Department over the past year to ensuring that those eligible for benefits are aware of their entitlement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In financial year 1988–89, a total of £12·7 million was spent in promoting awareness of the Department's benefits. This sum includes advertising and publicity leaflets. In addition freeline social security offers a free general advice and information service on social security matters and is now receiving more than 900,000 calls yearly. The Department is currently running an advertising campaign, including television, to make people aware of their entitlement to family credit and to encourage them to claim. This campaign is costing £4·8 million.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Fylde will benefit from the new benefits package announced last November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The new package will benefit some 2·6 million pensioners across the country. I regret that I am unable to provide separate figures for my hon. Friend's constituency.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to improve the financial position of the retired and others dependent upon fixed incomes no longer entitled to benefit entitlements following the recent changes in the arrangements for social security payments and housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We undertook to monitor the effects of the reforms and as a result have already acted to improve the benefit position of certain vulnerable groups. Last April we acted quickly to raise the capital limit for housing benefit to £8,000 bringing 100,000 people (nearly all pensioners) back into benefit. Recently we announced further help for two particular groups. From October there will be improvements in income support and housing benefit for older and disabled pensioners; including husbands and wives some 2·6 million people will be better off as a result. From July certain 16 and 17-year-olds will benefit from changes to the income support rules and all 16 and 17-year-olds receiving housing benefit only will see an improvement in their benefit position.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average level of Government financial support for pensioners in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average level of Government support for pensioners(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Social security spending in the United Kingdom on the elderly is currently approximately 5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Comparable figures for the other member states of the European Community are not available.
  427
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men and women who will reach retirement age on or after 1 October will benefit from the abolition of the retirement pensions earnings rule.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are three main catetgories of people who will benefit from the abolition of the retirement pension earnings rule. Individuals who reach pension age on or after 1 October will be able to choose to receive their retirement pension and earn as much as they can, with no reduction in their state retirement pension. There are 200,000 individuals currently deferring receipt of their retirement pension and a further 2,500 individuals whose retirement pension is currently reduced because of earnings over £75 a week who will benefit. In addition, there are about 200,000 individuals who currently earn less than £75 a week who may choose from 1 October to earn more, plus a large number of people who are not earning at present who may now choose to start earning.

  Claimants (Medical Examination)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the circumstances under which long-term invalidity benefit claimants are referred for independent medical examination by his Department's divisional medical officers.

  Mr. Scott
  We are satisfied that the present arrangements, using independent doctors employed by the Department of Health, strike the right balance between the interests of the claimant and the need to ensure that benefit rules are fulfilled. In 1988, 55 per cent. of claimants referred to the regional medical service were found incapable of work without the need for them to undergo a further medical examination. I have no plans for a review.

  Leaflets
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for social security leaflets have. been met in the 48-hour turnabout period; and how many requests are still outstanding.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for social security leaflets have been met in the 48-hour turnabout period; and how many requests are still waiting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the introduction this month of the additional distribution arrangements for leaflets and forms there have been seven items requested making a total order of 5,615 pieces sent within the 48-hour turnabout. There is one part of one order outstanding awaiting the supply of re-printed leaflets. The remainder of this order is expected to be fulfilled this week.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department has done to help disabled sportsmen and women.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to help disabled sportsmen and women.

  Mr. Scott
  On 26 April, I announced that the Government had awarded £500,000 to set up a fund to 428
  help sportsmen and women with disabilities to practice their chosen sport. The fund will be administered by the British Paralympic Association, and will help disabled people and voluntary organisations with the costs of equipment, training or organising events. It will be of considerable assistance to disabled people wishing to lake part in sport at any level.

  Although of course the responsibility for sporting issues lies with the Department of the Environment, officials in both Departments work closely together on matters affecting sportsmen and women with disabilities. For example, the Department has participated in the major review of sporting needs and opportunities for people with disabilities, which has been led by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and Minister for Sport. [The review group's report is due to be published in July.]

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the financing of local services for disabled people for which his Department has responsibility.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department of Social Security does not finance any services for disabled people through local authorities but, through its network of local offices, provides benefits to disabled people at nationally determined rates.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he proposes formally to consult disabled people, and their organisations. on the review of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Organisations representing disabled people are already commenting on the published findings of the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We welcome those comments, which contribute to the process of reviewing disability benefits in the light of the OPCS data. As I said in my reply to the right hon. Member on 17 April at column 10, I hope to announce a timetable for further action after all the survey results have been published in July.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the United Kingdom has been involved in any European programmes for the disabled.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the United Kingdom has participated in any European programmes for the disabled.

  Mr. Scott
  The United Kingdom participated in the European Commission's first action programme for the disabled (1983–1987), and is currently participating in the second follow on action programme called Handicapped people in Europe Living Independently in an Open Society (HELIOS). This programme involves setting up local model activities to represent good practice in vocational and economic integration, social integration and independent living, and educational integration.

  In addition in 1988 the United Kingdom allocated £27·8 million from the European social fund towards vocational training projects for the disabled re-entering the open labour market. This represents the largest allocation to any EC member state for 1988 and accounts for just under 8 per cent. of the allocation to the United Kingdom.
  429
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in real terms in spending on social security benefits for the sick and disabled since 1978–79; and what proportion of this increase has been due to(a) the increase in the number of people receiving benefit, (b) increases in the actual benefit rates and (c) increases in the total real value of payments for reasons other than (b).

  Mr. Scott
  Spending on the long-term sick and disabled increased by £3·5 billion in real terms between 1978–79 and 1988–89, a real increase of 90 per cent. Increases in the numbers of beneficiaries account for about 90 per cent. of the real increase and the balance of 10 per cent. represents a real increase in the average amount of benefit paid. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the increase in the amount of benefit paid as requested in(b) and (c). A full comparison of benefit rates in 1978–79 and 1988–89 cannot be made because of the changes to the income-related benefits over this period.

  Expectant Mothers
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make a statement on benefit allowances for expectant mothers.

  Mr. Scott
  A pregnant woman who has worked during her pregnancy will generally get 18 weeks statutory maternity pay (SMP) from her employer. The rate payable depends on her length of service and earnings, but if she has worked for the same employer for at least two years she will get 90 per cent. of her earnings for the first six weeks of payment. A pregnant woman with a recent employment record who does not qualify for SMP will get 18 weeks maternity allowance (MA) from the Department of Social Security. Pregnant women on low incomes also qualify for income support under the normal rules for that payment. Where they are in receipt of income support or family credit they can, in addition, claim an £85 social fund maternity payment.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings will be made in 1989–90 by not uprating the social fund payment to pregnant women on income support in line with other benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since there is no statutory duty to uprate social fund maternity payments, no saving arises in 1989–90. However, to have increased such payments in line with other benefits would have cost about £650,000.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if statistical information is available on the number of claimants and subsequent recipients of family credit in each area of the United Kingdom; and what arrangements are being made to monitor the take-up rate during the current campaign.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is now available on the number of people actually receiving family credit in each local social security office area in Great Britain immediately before the start of the current take-up campaign, and this information will be updated from time to time as part of the monitoring of the campaign. A similar breakdown of the number of claims for family 430
  credit is not available. Information about take-up rates can only be obtained retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data, and only on a national basis.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the community charge rebate.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the community charge rebate.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the community charge rebate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) earlier today.

  Efficiency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has as to whether the social security reforms have increased efficiency in the social security system.

  Mr. Scott
  There is considerable evidence that the social security reforms have resulted in benefits being directed more accurately and promptly. For example, income support (formerly supplementary benefit) error rates are down from 12 to 8 per cent. claims clearance times have fallen from six to five days and, for family credit (formerly family income supplement), claims clearance times have fallen from 18 to 16·5 working days.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the outturn for 1988–89 in invalid care allowance; and what has been the increase in real terms over the past five years.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated outturn for invalid care allowance in 1988–89 is £160 million. This represents an increase in real terms of 1,043 per cent since 1984–85.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the payment limits for residential homes.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) earlier today.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the payment limits for residential homes.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the payment limits for residential homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Members to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) earlier today.
  431
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from Oxfordshire social services on benefit levels for private residential nursing and rest homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a letter from the director of social services for Oxfordshire about the levels of benefit available to people in homes. A reply has been sent.

  Family Expenditure
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much he estimates expenditure on the family has increased under this Government.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Excluding the extra help needed because unemployment was rising, support for families fell between 1974–75 and 1978–79 by 7 per cent. in real terms —or £500 million in 1988–89 values. Under this Government, the real increase up to 1988–89 was £1.8 billion (£1,840 million)—a rise of 27·3 per cent.

  Disaster Fund Payments
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether payments made from any disaster fund raised by public donations affect the housing allowances or other social security benefit entitlement of the recipient; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Payments from disaster funds do not affect the majority of social security benefits.

  The income-related benefits—income support, family credit and housing benefit—may be affected by payments from disaster funds but this will depend on the size and nature of the payments. The first £5 per week of any regular payment may be disregarded and a lump sum payment will not affect benefit unless it takes the claimant's capital over £3,000. An income of £1 per week is assumed for every £250, or part thereof, of capital between £3,000 and £6,000 in income support and family credit, and between £3,000 and £8,000 in housing benefit. No income support or family credit is payable if the capital held is over £6,000, and no housing benefit is available if it is over £8,000. However, capital held on trust, may be disregarded. For example, any payment made from a disaster fund because of a personal injury, which is placed on trust, is fully disregarded for at least two years and, in the case of a child, for as long as the child is a dependant. Any actual payments from the trust will be taken into account as income or capital in the normal way. In addition, any payment made to a third party will be completely disregarded if it is used to provide goods or services which are not already met by benefit. Officials continue to liaise with the administrators of the Hillsborough disaster fund and they have advised them of the social security rules.

  The 1989 Social Security Bill will not result in any social security benefit being recovered from payments made from any disaster fund.

  Family Support
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of Government financial support for the family in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.
  432
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) earlier today.

  "The Business of Service"
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is acting on any of the recommendations made in "The Business of Service" report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department is taking action on all the recommendations of "The Business of Service" report. When we published the report in June 1988 my right hon. Friend anounced to the House that we had not rejected any of the report's 54 recommendations, although some needed further work. A copy of the action plan giving details of our response to all the report's recommendations was placed in the Library in January this year. A full implementation report will be prepared by the autumn.

  Substantial progress is being made on the recommendations which need further work and we are in the process of implementing the recommendations we have accepted. In particular, my hon. Friend will be aware that we have already announced plans for relocation of some work from some London social security offices. My right hon. Friend also announced on 17 May the publication of a national definition of service, the setting of new performance targets and plans to turn social security operations work into "Next Steps" agencies.

  Reforms (Monitoring)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to monitor the social security reforms.

  Mr. Scott
  We have given an undertaking to monitor all aspects of the social security reforms. This is a continuing process and is showing that the reforms are meeting their main objectives in producing a benefit system that is easier to understand and administer, that is better targeted on priority groups and that enhances rather than obstructs individual responsibility and choice.

  The monitoring process has also enabled us to make improvements where these have been shown to be necessary. For example, since April 1988:
  —the capital limit for housing benefit has been increased from £6,000 to £8,000, at a cost of £30 million;
  —transitional payments of housing benefit have been introduced for pensioners, working families with children, sick and disabled people and widows, at a cost of £70 million;
  —£70 million extra help has been given to poorer families with children on top of a normal uprating;
  —nearly £200 million extra will be available to older and disabled pensioners from October this year, on top of their uprated benefits;
  —the independent living fund has been established to enable severely disabled people to live independently in the community;
  —extra help will be given, from July this year, to 16 and 17-year-olds who are forced to live away from home;
  —women widowed before the introduction of the reforms have had their benefit restored in line with the expectations that they formed then;
  —premiums within income support are being extended to all claimants receiving urgent cases payments, notably asylum seekers.

  I believe that these measures demonstrate the Government's readiness to respond quickly in those areas

  433
  where fine tuning is shown to be necessary and that they add to the success and underlying coherence of the reforms.

  Dorothy Moran
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will pay Dorothy Moran her claim for the higher rate of attendance allowance as upheld by the social security commissioners, under their issued decision CA/139/1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The tribunal of social security commissioners decision CA/139/1988 did not award Mrs. Moran the higher rate of attendance allowance, but it found that the independent attendance allowance board had made errors in law in its decision that she satisfied only the medical criteria for the lower rate of the allowance. The board is in the process of reviewing its decision in the light of the commissioners' findings.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year since 1979 the total number of prosecutions initiated by the Department of Social Security against employers for failure to pay over national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department uses both civil and criminal proceedings to recover national insurance contributions that have not been paid over by employers. The information requested is not available prior to 1983–84. The available information is as follows:

  Civil proceedings

  Criminal proceedings

  1983–84

  2,080

  1,971

  1984–85

  1,570

  1,326

  1985–86

  1,259

  13

  1986–87

  1,508

  15

  1987–88

  1,254

  10

  1988–89

  1,522

  6

  The reduction in criminal proceedings after 1984–85 resulted partly from the repeal of section 152(4) of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year since 1979 the total amount of unpaid national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £

  1979–80

  8,659,576

  1980–81

  69,687,552

  1981–82

  30,402,682

  1982–83

  73,073,351

  1983–84

  83,505,000

  1984–85

  77,606,000

  1985–86

  94,325,000

  1986–87

  99,794,000

  1987–88

  94,952,000

  Notes:

  1. Prior to 1980–81, amounts of unpaid national insurance contributions transferred from Inland Revenue were recorded only when the Department had abandoned hopes of recovery. As a result,
  434
  a significant total debt accumulated, much of which was eventually abandoned. From 1980–81, it was decided to record as unpaid amounts transferred from Inland Revenue in the year the transfer took place. Outstanding sums transferred in earlier years amounting to £40,764,693 were therefore included in the figure shown for 1980–81.

  2. The amount shown for 1981–82 was affected by industrial action.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year since 1979(a) the total number of inquiries from local Department of Social Security offices to the contributions office in Newcastle and (b) the number of inquiries returned because they cannot be linked to any record of contributions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Records show that the number of inquiries to DSS Newcastle central office from all sources, including local offices of the Department, is as follows:

  Number

  1981–82

  10,846,742

  1982–83

  24,542,960

  1983–84

  19,706,292

  1984–85

  18,384,182

  1985–86

  30,451,984

  1986–87

  37,465,803

  1987–88

  22,887,640

  1988–89

  23,254,859

  No information is available for years before 1981–82.

  Records are kept of the number of items which are rejected during computer processing, but records of the number of items rejected because no account has been traced are not maintained separately. For 1988–89 the overall total of rejected items was 721,960.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year since 1979(a) the total number of claimants requesting that contributions are deemed paid under regulation 39 of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1979 and (b) the number of such requests granted; and if he will also give these figures broken down according to type of benefit claimed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No record is kept of the number of claimants who request deeming of contributions under regulation 39 of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1979. Regulation 39 is applied only where the secondary contributor is unable to pay arrears of contributions due. This usually happens when an employer is bankrupt or goes into liquidation. Where claimants to benefit find that their contribution record is deficient and report the fact that they have paid contributions to DSS, investigations are commenced to recover the moneys due. As benefit rights in respect of all such employees are protected records, the number of these reports is not maintained.

  Martin Smale
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now prepare a statement of case with regard to Martin William John Smale of Grosvenor house, lvybridge; and why no action has taken place since completed forms in respect of an appeal were acknowledged as having been received by the DHSS on 28 June 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A statement of case has been prepared in respect of the war pension entitlement appeal lodged by
  435
  Martin William John Smale of Grosvenor house, Ivybridge. Medical branch is currently preparing the opinion of medical division which accompanies the statement of case. Both documents will be despatched to Mr. Smale's representative within the month.

  At the time of lodging the appeal, Mr. Smale's representative made representations about the terms of Mr. Smale's discharge from the Navy. War pensions branch made inquiries to the Ministry of Defence and wrote to Mr. Smale's representative about the findings on 20 April. This was in addition to preparing the statement of case and seeking medical advice.

  Widows
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has and from what sources, on the proportion of widows, under 45 years, who remarry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Latest available information indicates that about 90 per cent. of widows aged 44 and under remarry within 10 years. This information was published in Population Trends No. 30 (January 1983), in table 3 of the article by John Haskey of OPCS, entitled "Widowhood, Widowerhood and Remarriage".

  Maternity Benefits
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what comparative assessment he has made of the United Kingdom system of maternity benefits as against those of European Community countries.

  Social fund budgeting loans, crisis loans and community care grants for year 1988–89

  Estimated percentages of numbers of awards by client group

  Client group

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Not known or unallocated

  0·5

  0·2

  0·4

  Applicant or partner aged 60 or over

  80 and over, with IS higher pensioner premium

  0·3

  0·1

  4·5

  Aged 60–79, disabled with higher pensioner premium

  0·6

  0·1

  3·7

  Aged 60–79

  3·9

  0·9

  14·3

  Applicant and partner aged under 60

  Lone parents with IS disability premium

  0·4

  0·2

  0·9

  Family with IS disability premium

  3·6

  1·3

  3·4

  Others with IS disability premium

  3·6

  1·5

  10·0

  Lone parents

  43·9

  19·8

  25·2

  Unemployed, signing quarterly at UBO, with IS family premium

  0·7

  0·1

  0·7

  Unemployed, signing quarterly at UBO, without IS family premium

  2·1

  0·5

  1·5

  Unemployed or with training allowance, with IS family premium

  16·7

  13·8

  9·5

  Unemployed or with training allowance, without IS family premium

  18·8

  42·8

  16·4

  Others, with IS family premium

  1·0

  1·1

  2·0

  Others, without IS family premium

  3·8

  5·9

  6·3

  Involved in a trade dispute

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Not on IS

  n/a

  11·8

  1·1

  Total

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  n/a = Not applicable.

  Note: Percentages are based on data from June 1988 to March 1989.
  436
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) earlier today.

  Appeal Procedures
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further steps he proposes to take to speed up the social security appeals procedures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Delays in hearing social security appeals are steadily decreasing due to a reduction in their volume caused largely by the introduction of the social fund and the replacement of supplementary benefit by the simpler scheme of income support.

  The administrative procedures involved are undertaken partly by the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, and partly by the Department of Social Security. However, overall responsibility for appeals processing lies with the president, and the hon. Member may wish to take up the matter directly with him.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State For Social Security what percentage of(a) budgeting loans, (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department since the introduction of the social fund.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: The latest provisional estimates based on data from June 1988 to March 1989 are given in the table.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has spent £1,978,831 on commercial television air time since being formed in August 1988. Prior to that expenditure on TV advertising 438
  was incurred by the Department of Health and Social Security. Between May 1984 and July 1988 that figure was £1,752,745.

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

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: I regret that this information is commercially confidential.

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

Soviet Military Doctrine
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are any indications that Soviet military doctrine has moved from the offensive to the defensive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, Soviet spokesmen have long claimed that their military doctrine is defensive. They have recently announced planned unilateral cuts in their conventional forces and have accepted in principle Western proposals for equal ceilings at levels proposed by the alliance on tanks and armoured troop carriers. But these unilateral cuts have yet to be fully implemented and whether a detailed agreement which would eliminate the conventional imbalance can be achieved has yet to be determined. It is also unclear how remaining Soviet forces would be structured.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware of the extent of Mr. Gorbachev's problem? Were he genuinely to seek parity with NATO, I understand that he would have to scrap 4,000 aircraft; 30,000 guns; 35,000 tanks and one million soldiers. Does the noble Baroness agree that cuts of that magnitude would cause chaos both to the Russian economy and to the Russian military high command?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only say that we heartily welcome any intention of transferring
2
military spending to the civilian sector. We all recognise that Mr. Gorbachev has a monumental task ahead. That is why we welcome the acceptance of our figures for tanks to be reduced to 20,000 per side and armoured troop carriers to be reduced to 28,000 per side. But we still have some agreement to reach on artillery.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is highly desirable that there should be no exchange here? While we welcome the transfer of the Soviet forces from the offensive to the defensive, we should take great care that we ourselves in turn do not go from the defensive to the offensive.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel sure that everybody in the Government joins me in agreeing with that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we need to maintain an effective and vigilant defence capability, does the noble Baroness agree that the cuts in conventional and nuclear forces ordered by President Gorbachev indicate a significant change in Soviet military strategy? Can the; noble Baroness say how the Government will respond to President Gorbachev's proposal to reduce armed forces to common levels by 1997? Without committing herself too far, does she agree that all these are extremely significant changes?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, we agree that we are certainly moving in the right direction. As the noble Lord will be aware, two sets of negotiations are currently under way on conventional forces in Europe, between members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and on confidence-building measures with 35 members of CSCE, both of which began on 6th March this year. I can report that the atmosphere so far is most cordial and workmanlike. Progress is being made.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that we are very encouraged by the positive nature of her Answer to the Question

3
put by her noble friend Lord Mersey? That contrasts with the answers given last week to what appeared to be a series of questions on Soviet arms from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. There is also the Question tabled tomorrow by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. We on these Benches can only assume that they are purely coincidental. Does the noble Baroness also agree that the unilateral cuts which President Gorbachev has made of 500,000 troops and a substantial number of tanks, with the suggestions of demilitarisation of the Chinese-USSR frontier which has come up recently, are matters for encouragement? Is it not unfortunate that the President of the United States should regard these matters as propaganda ploys and that the Secretary of State of the United States should say that they are designed to divide the alliance?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may refer back to the answer that I gave to the previous question. I should have thought that the wholly constructive attitude of the two sets of negotiations which are currently going on in relation to conventional forces must be welcomed.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us any information on the one part of the Soviet offensive which seems to be continuing in full force; namely, its espionage?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that is a different matter, rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, nevertheless, has not the Minister noticed that since Gorbachev took over, the assessment of his actions and of the actions of the Soviet Government made by the German Government have proved a great deal more realistic than those made by the British Government? Is the noble Baroness aware that some of the suspicions voiced—perhaps quite naturally—by Ministers from the government Benches have proved in effect to be completely unfounded?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as we understand it, the Soviet aim is the denuclearisation of Europe. That was the argument put forward recently by Mr. Gorbachev. For NATO, we believe that SNF, for example, remains an essential element of deterrence. Given this conceptual difference in objectives, we see no prospect for a fruitful outcome to any arms control negotiations which assume total denuclearisation and forget that element of deterrence.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish Mr. Gorbachev a fair wind. Is my noble friend, and all noble Lords, aware that there is a big internal problem in Russia, according to an article in The Times written a week ago by Mr. Michael Evans? It suggested that the Kremlin itself finds it very hard to count Russian tanks and other equipment and that Mr. Gorbachev has set up a special unit to do this. However, this unit is being
4
blocked by the Russian general staff. Will my noble friend comment on that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have already said, we recognise the monumental task that Mr. Gorbachev has ahead of him. As I have said, we can only welcome the intention to transfer military spending to the civilian sector. We can only hope that an adequate outcome will result from all the negotiations that are taking place. However, it is an interesting fact that the figures that have been put forward by the Warsaw Pact countries recently are higher than the estimates that we already had.

Lebanon: Restoration of Peace
2.43 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether as a result of the initiative of the Arab League and in furtherance of their discussions with the European Community and the permanent members of the Security Council, they can now hold out any hope for an early end to the bombardment in Beirut and for the restoration of peace in Lebanon.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Arab League negotiators helped bring about a ceasefire on 11th May. Despite sporadic shelling of the coastline and tragic incidents such as the assassination of the Mufti on 16th May, this ceasefire appears generally to be holding.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, was not Syria's presence in the Lebanon originally designed to produce conditions for a political solution? However, is it not now becoming increasingly clear that the 25,000 or more Syrian troops there are in reality an army of occupation? As the Syrians seem to justify their actions on the grounds that they need to protect themselves against Israeli threats, will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity of the presence in London of Mr. Shamir to press for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon; that is, both Syrian and Israeli troops?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that all those involved in the current fighting, including Syria, should agree in the first place to an immediate ceasefire. We also believe that the Israelis should withdraw fully from Lebanon and allow UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, to deploy to the international border in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Recommendation No. 425. We believe that the Israeli presence in Lebanon is provocative and destabilising and not in Israel's own long-term interests. I cannot inform my noble friend what is on the agenda of the discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister, but I have little doubt that this will be one of the items.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I shall turn to a slightly different point. What are the prospects

5
of deploying the Arab League monitoring force in the Lebanon? As the noble Baroness is aware, there has been a good deal of speculation as to whether this force may become effective. Will she tell us what the latest news on this matter is? Further, I mention the concern with which we all regard the latest kidnapping of another British subject in the Lebanon. Will the Minister say what action Her Majesty's Government are taking or what representations they are making? Does she not agree that this barbaric, uncivilised and cruel practice does no good whatsoever to the Palestinian cause, or indeed to the Islamic religion, and that the more that is publicised the better the situation may be and we may get some results?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we acknowledge the extensive work which has been carried out by the committee of six of the Arab League. Indeed it is that committee which nursed into being the ceasefire of 11th May, which, despite sporadic firing and the latest car bomb incident on 16th May, is generally holding. We believe that the Arab League should be allowed a free hand in consolidating this achievement. The noble Lord may be aware that there is an extraordinary Arab League summit meeting scheduled for later this week in Morocco. I have no doubt that Lebanon will be high on the agenda.
With regard to the disappearance of Mr. Jack Mann which took place in West Beirut on 12th May, we of course remain deeply concerned for all British hostages in Beirut. However we are firmly convinced nevertheless that our policy of not making substantive concessions to terrorists is the right one. Nevertheless, clearly the embassy is making, and has made, all the necessary representations and is using its best endeavours to solve the problem. However, part of the problem as regards this disappearance is that there is no knowledge of a group which may have been responsible.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while expressing sympathy with and admiration for the noble Baroness in her handling of these Questions, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he agrees that with two Questions on the Order Paper dealing with foreign affairs and defence it is a pity that no one from either the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office is here to answer the Questions, on which the House can reasonably expect an informed Answer.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, both the Ministers concerned are abroad on the business of their departments. They try to be here to answer to your Lordships' House whenever possible but it just so happens that they are abroad at the present time.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that reply, may I suggest that in such circumstances it might be more appropriate to defer the asking of such Questions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is answering very well on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, while welcoming the present fragile peace, will Her Majesty's Government and other governments, particularly those of the Arab League, now urge the Syrian Government and President Assad publicly to accept Resolution 520 of the United Nations, which recognises Lebanon, a foundation member of the United Nations, as being an independent and sovereign state?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, we support any realistic attempt to achieve a durable negotiated settlement which will lead to the restoration of peace, full sovereignty, independence, territoral integrity and nationality unity of the Lebanon. However, we believe that in the present situation it is important to allow and enable the Arab League to persevere in the work it is doing in this respect. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to make any pronouncement on the lines which the noble Earl has suggested.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while I warmly welcome the Answers she has given on this Question, does the noble Baroness agree that it was the Arab League which invited the Syrians into Lebanon in the first place for the protection of the Christians? Does she also agree that it is very unrealistic for Arab Governments to urge the Syrians to leave while the Israelis stay, as she said, in the south?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. Perhaps I can supplement what I said earlier by saying that we are committed to the United Nations Interim Force in maintaining stability in Southern Lebanon. Obviously we continue to support that approach as well as awaiting a further outcome from the Arab League.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, would not the annihilation of Lebanon be greatly against Western interests? Ought we not to be seen to be associating ourselves closely with the French Government and the Government of the United States of America in giving maximum public backing to the efforts of the Arab League?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that we have already done so. Through the European Community we have expressed full backing for the Arab League in its efforts to achieve a political solution. We and other members of the Twelve stand ready to help in whatever way is thought helpful. We have issued several statements to that effect, both unilaterally and together with the United States and our partners in the European Community.

Middle East: Humanitarian Initiatives
2.53 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose any new humanitarian initiatives in the Lebanon or elsewhere in the Middle East.
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. We shall continue to work for peaceful and durable solutions to regional disputes in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, and to play our part, both bilaterally and through international organisations, in helping to relieve the suffering of those involved in the conflicts in the region.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I put to her—
Noble Lords: No! You can ask her.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the possibility of calling for medical volunteers to go out to that area, of the calibre of Dr. Cutting who did such marvellous work in 1981 and 1982?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the circumstances on the ground make the provision of direct aid difficult. That is why first of all we have called on all parties to agree to a negotiated ceasefire. Then we shall know exactly what work needs to be done and can work with our partners to relieve the suffering. We all acknowledge the devoted work of Dr. Cutting and others who, in similar difficult circumstances, do their best to help the people who are suffering as a result of the conflict.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the US State Department's annual report, issued in February of this year, which says that the number of Palestinians imprisoned rose from 4,700 in December 1987 to 10,000 in February of this year? In the light of the concern both in this House and in the country will the noble Baroness say that the Government will lose no opportunity to bring this concern to the notice of the Israeli Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have already brought this to the notice of the Israeli Government and will continue to take such steps as they feel are necessary.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the sufferings of the Kurdish people, especially in Iraq and Turkey, are among those to which the Government are giving particular attention?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. No, I am sorry; the second Question on this subject does say "elsewhere in the Middle East". I was going to add
8
in any event that those particular problems are very much within the remit of the Foreign Office and of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

Law Commission Report No. 177
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards Law Commission Report No. 177(A Criminal Code for England and Wales with draft Bill and commentary attached).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Law Commission's report has only recently been presented to Parliament. The Government are at present studying its proposals.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, there being no contentious party political content in this report, does my noble friend recognise that it is probably the most ambitious and comprehensive set of suggestions on law reform to which the Law Commission has yet given birth? Does he agree that it is quite beyond the power of any individual Peer to pilot a Bill through Parliament containing the draft Bill? Will he therefore ask his colleagues, perhaps in conjunction with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that the Government should give this important project a reasonable degree of priority, even if it costs one or two of the more contentious proposals which they have in mind?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept entirely that the proposals of the Law Commission are not party politically controversial. That does not mean to say that they are not controversial. I agree with my noble and learned friend that this is a very comprehensive work. I think that it took the Law Commission eight years to ruminate and decide on its conclusion. I think that it is not too long to suggest that the Government should have more than one month to make up their own mind. I can assure my noble and learned friend that it is not completely plain sailing. There are some quite controversial suggestions in the report and that is why we want to make certain that what we propose is as nearly right as it can be.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister agree that this is a monumental report, consisting as it does of a report, a draft Bill of a most comprehensive nature, and very full commentaries on the draft Bill? Is it not a matter for very great congratulation, whatever the Government's thinking, to Mr. Justice Beldam, his fellow commissioners and all those who assisted him? Will not the Government agree that the aim of the report and the Bill—namely, to make criminal law more accessible, comprehensible, consistent and certain—is a consummation devoutly to be wished?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, knows, I speak as one who is a non-lawyer. If the attributes that the Law Commission sought to achieve were to come about, I for one—and, I am

9
sure, many others—would be greatly indebted to it. The noble Lord is perfectly right. It is a monumental document and it was a monumental task. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the congratulations of all of us on all sides of the House should go to the Law Commission and all who took part in what it did not only on its results, but on the work that it put in in order to achieve it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am sure that the Opposition would be delighted to co-operate and make life easier for him if he were to withdraw the Water and Electricity Bills in favour of this Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I intended to commend the noble Baroness on her remarkably sound advice and on the fact that she intended to co-operate. I should like to suggest that she continue in that happy frame and that she might pass the advice on to her Front Bench. However, as her advice was qualified by suggesting that we remove two of the most important Bills, I should ask her to think again to make sure that her advice is quite as she expected it to be.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may put this as a question to my noble friend: is it not the case that, if we are ever to have a criminal code at all—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, is devoutly to be wished—there is absolutely no way in which a code can be introduced into Parliament which will not give rise to quite considerable discussion? Will my noble friend consider that one option is to put forward the draft Bill on behalf of the Government without tying them to the exact proposals contained in it and see what comes of parliamentary debate? Perhaps I may just ask him this: is it not an ideal proposal to be brought forward in this House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so, but I am quite sure that, if my noble and learned friend takes his mind back to the days when he used to practise, he would never have divulged his views without having first read the brief. All we suggest is that the Government should have time to consider the Law Commission's proposals before they make up their mind.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
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 Summer Time Order 1989 and the Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Prisons (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Water Bill
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 72 [Performance of sewerage functions by local authorities etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 340ZA:
Page 83, line 26, at end insert—
("Provided that where any relevant authority expresses a desire to carry out sewerage functions in its relevant area the sewerage undertaker shall make arrangements with that relevant authority to discharge the necessary sewerage functions.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 340ZB, 340ZD, 446A and 446B. These amendments all raise the issue of the role of local authorities in carrying out the function of sewerage undertakers. Although to some extent they have a somewhat different thrust from each other, none of these amendments calls into question the basic object of the Bill which is to privatise the sewerage authorities along with the water authorities.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee as briefly as possible of the history of the sewerage undertakings in this country and then go on to explain why we think that these amendments are necessary. In order to do that, I need to go back at least to the Public Health Act 1872 and possibly to a much earlier period. I refer—the Committee will forgive me—specifically and briefly to the sewerage undertakings of our major cities and in particular those major cities which grew up in the 19th century. In the period before that, concentrations of population were such that complicated sewerage undertakings were not necessary. It was with the industrial revolution and the growth of the large industrial cities that it became necessary for sewerage undertakings to act like water undertakings on a very large scale.
This is an issue of public health and it was an issue of public health throughout the 19th century. Throughout that century, continual efforts had to be made by Parliament and by local authorities to secure public health by improving the standards of sewerage undertakings. The quality of urban life depended on having good housing, a clean water supply and a sewerage system that did not simply mean that raw sewage was pumped out from the conduit into the nearest river. It can be argued that

11
the improvement in the quality of life in our big cities owed as much to the improvements in the sewerage system and in public health generally as it did to advances in medical science.
However, what is common to all those advances in public health is that they were undertaken by our local authorities. That was the case right up to and including the two most recent pieces of legislation on water and sewerage. Under the Water Act 1973, when the regional water authorities were set up, agency agreements were set up under Section 17. That meant that the local authorities had responsibility for 100 per cent. of the sewerage functions in our cities and our country as a whole. That was at a time when 25 per cent. of our water undertakings were, as they are now, in private hands. But Section 15 of the 1973 Water Act secured that the district councils should continue to manage the sewerage functions. Indeed, in introducing the Water Act 1983, depite the considerable pressure from the Water Authorities Association, the Government continued with that policy. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who was then the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, said on 8th March 1983:
"We have never envisaged any general termination of sewerage agencies. We want them to continue unless there are good reasons why, in specific cases, they should end".—[Official Report,8/3/83; col. 182.]
The result of that Act, as of the 1973 Act, has been that sewerage functions have continued to be carried out by local authorities.
Noble Lords paid some attention in earlier sittings of this Committee to the work of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when they were discussing the commercial viability and suitability of statutory water companies. In November 1982, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission issued a report on sewerage function of the Anglian Water Authority and the North West Water Authority. The water authorities had recommended to the commission that all existing Section 15 arrangements should be ended by legislation. They thought that it would be cheaper if done directly rather than by working through district councils acting under agency agreements.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission ruled firmly against those proposals and the government at the time—a government of the same political persuasion as this Government—ratified the ruling in the Water Act 1983. So the historical evidence, extending from the 19th century until right up to date in the 1980s, including the policies of the Government before the introduction of this Bill, has been that sewerage functions are best undertaken by local authorities. There are very good reasons; it is not pure chance. The local authorities have so many responsibilities in the area of public health, environmental protection, rodent control and so on, that to separate the sewerage function (which is a critical element in public health) from those other local authority functions would be an absurdity.
Local authorities have responsibility for dealing with the wide range of problems which might occur given a collapse in the sewerage system. There could
12
be public health problems; there could also be traffic problems when, as often happens, sewers collapse underneath public roads. Local authorities have many other functions closely related to sewerage functions: housing, industrial and commercial development, building and development control, highway drainage and so on. If there were to be a different agency carrying out the sewerage work, then there would be overlapping and repetition.
Let us take a specific example: flooding from sewers. That is the nastiest kind of flooding. It causes great distress and inevitably involves housing and social services staff, the emergency fire service, which is responsible for pumping out flooded premises, and other local authority services from a wide range of departments. Another important reason for involving local authorities is that they are accessible to the public. It is important that all incidents of failure of the sewerage system should be reported to the local authority. It is important that people in a local authority area should know what is going on and should have an opportunity to report defects in the system which are apparent to them but not necessarily important to the sewerage undertakers.
So the case for local authorities, as a general rule, continuing to be the agencies for the sewerage function which is to be privatised under this Bill is overwhelming. In Amendment No. 340ZA we provide that if any local authority,
"expresses a desire to carry out sewerage functions in its relevant area the sewerage undertaker shall make arrangements with that relevant authority to discharge the necessary sewerage functions".
The Committee may feel that such an open-ended commitment to local authorities' right to carry out sewerage functions if they want to, whether or not the sewerage undertakings want them to do so, is a more radical change than might be desired. I hope that what I have said in support of the role of local authorities as regards sewerage is sufficient argument for it. However, just in case it is not, these Benches have prepared in Amendment No. 340ZB an alternative means of securing the continued involvement of local authorities. Under the amendment the undertakers would control their expenditure and costs and the local authorities would be required to give a commitment that they are willing and able to do all the necessary work to meet the requirements of the sewerage undertaker. In other words, we are trying to strengthen the power to secure the local authority position but at the same time not infringe in any way, in spirit or by letter, the intention of the Government in privatising the sewerage function. In contrast to the previous amendment, this is certainly not radical and certainly not threatening. It reflects the nature of the sewerage business and its relationship with local authorities.
Amendment No. 340ZD is simply a consequential amendment which deals with the situation where the boundaries of the local authorities do not coincide with the boundaries of the sewerage undertakings and where it is necessary to go outside them on certain occasions.
Sewerage is not the most politically glamorous of all the subjects we deal with in this Chamber, but it is one that is very close to the lives of all the people of our country. It is of great importance to public health and to the quality of the lives of our people. Any change to a system which has been built up successfully over a period of more than a century deserves to be considered extremely carefully and justified very fully
I know that the Government wish to see a substantial involvement of local authorities in carrying out sewerage functions on an agency basis. They said so on a number of occasions during the Bill's passage through another place. In these amendments we propose that there should be real strength behind that commitment and a real opportunity for local authorities to provide the service that we and they know they can provide. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): I am in slight confusion. In the grouping list, which was changed, Amendments Nos. 340ZA, 340ZB and 340ZD were placed on their own. In fact the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he would speak to two other amendments, which I missed out on.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must apologise to the Committee. I said that I would speak to two other amendments and I did not. I wished to speak only to Amendments Nos. 340ZA, 340ZB and 340ZD.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for having misinterpreted him. These three amendments bring us to a series of amendments on this clause which try to ensure a continuing role for local authorities in sewerage work. I should say, by way of introduction, that we do not differ at all from the proposers of these amendments in wishing to see a continuing role for local authorities in this field where they provide a cost-effective service. I am concerned, however, with the rigidity which these amendments would introduce into arrangements between sewerage undertakers and local authorities.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 340ZA. The purpose of this amendment is to oblige the undertaker to enter into sewerage agency arrangements with the relevant local authority where that authority expresses a desire to carry out the sewerage function. It would take us back to the type of sewerage arrangements set up by the Water Act 1973 where a water authority was virtually obliged to use a local authority as an agent whether the local authority could provide an efficient service or not.
Moreover, one of the purposes of this Bill is to place in the private sector those activities which in the past have had to be borne by the public sector. We accept—and I must stress this—that there is a good case for local authorities carrying out sewerage work by arrangement with sewerage undertakers if both parties are agreeable. That, after all, is precisely why we have included this clause in the Bill. But
14
these amendments are obviously designed to try to force the hand of the undertaker, and go against the spirit of the clause which aims to allow both parties as much freedom as possible.
Amendment No. 340ZB is an alternative amendment but I very much regret that it is in the same spirit as the previous one. This amendment would force the undertaker to use the local authority as an agent if the local authority could commit itself to performing what is described as,
"the appropriate level of work necessary",
within the authority's budget for that work. I do not think that this is an entirely satisfactory justification for yoking the undertaker to the local authority. We want undertakers to use the best agent for their purposes—which can of course include doing the work themselves—and we have no desire to prevent this.
That brings us to Amendment No. 340ZD which refers to and is entirely dependent on Amendment No. 340ZB. It enables the undertaker to enter into appropriate arrangements jointly with local authorities where there is more than one authority in the relevant area in the circumstances envisaged in that amendment.
As I have explained, we cannot accept the arrangements which the first two amendments would seek to impose on sewerage undertakers. They are quite out of keeping with our intentions to extend the options open to undertakers. I hope that the Committee will note that we have also extended the options open to local authorities by accepting an amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill which will enable local authorities to operate as agents in parts of adjacent local authority areas.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also argued that because local authorities are the primary point of contact for public health issues they should retain sewerage agency work. If this argument were correct, no re-organisation or improvement of any essential services would be possible. All bodies with responsibilities for public health and safety would have an appropriate set of contacts and procedures to deal with emergencies. I cannot see that the need for these provides any conclusive argument for local authorities to have a presumptive right to sewerage work.
Perhaps I should add here that the last Labour Government, in Cmnd. Paper 6876 The Water Industry in England and Wales: the Next Steps published in 1977, recognised the weaknesses of the sewerage agency arrangements set up under the 1973 Act. They proposed that water authorities should have a permissive power rather than a duty to make arrangements. This change was implemented in the Water Act 1983. Perhaps there is some confusion in the Labour Party on that point. I urge Members of the Committee to reject these three amendments.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Perhaps I may add one word of support for my noble friend. Discussion has been continuing ever since the 1973 Act as to whether the balance was right between the water authorities and the local authorities. The discussion is understandable for the very good reasons that the

15
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put so clearly before us. There are many local responsibilities of the local authority which key in with the sewerage function.
On the other hand, one must not forget that at the end of the day it is the regional water authority as of now and the water company in the future which are responsible for the discharge of sewage. Therefore the existing balance which leaves the decision with the company of the future—the water authority as it is now—is about right. It would be a mistake to throw the balance out by strengthening the position of the local authority. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is aware that, while these agency arrangements work very well and to the benefit of both parties, they have not always been so good. Some local authorities have not been satisfactory as agents and have given a good deal of trouble to the water authorities in carrying out their work. That stresses the point that the sewerage undertaker must be the ultimately responsible body which has the final decision.
There is one final point on technology. On sewerage, technology is advancing rapidly. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is aware of it. With the new trenchless technology, holes in the road can be made to a large extent without disturbing the surface. The apparatus for such technology is immensely expensive. Therefore few local authorities will be able to set it up. However, we are trying to foresee beyond the time that problems are settled by men with picks and shovels to when it is possible to repair or recondition without resurfacing with the fearful traffic delays that that involves. That is a development that we would welcome.
It is most important that the sewerage authority should have the ultimate decision. I would hope to see the balance maintained for the agency roughly as it now is. That has not worked badly in all the circumstances. I believe that it would be a mistake if the noble Lord, with his customary forcefulness, presses his amendment. I hope that he will not do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, have spoken more against Amendment No. 340ZA—which would give the local authorities a prescriptive right to carry on the agency agreements—than Amendment No. 340ZB. In abandoning my argument for Amendment No. 340ZA, perhaps I may remind the Committee what Amendment No. 340ZB states. I shall then put it in the context of what is stated in Schedule 25 to the Bill. Amendment No. 340ZB states:
"In deciding whether to enter into arrangements with a relevant authority"—
that is the local authority—
"a sewerage undertaker shall
(a) determine the appropriate level of annual planned expenditure necessary to ensure the proper discharge of its sewerage functions . . . and
(b) seek a commitment from the relevant authority that it is able to perform the appropriate level of work".
Three things need to be said about that. First, it is the sewerage undertaker that makes the decision under Amendment No. 340ZB and not the local
16
authority. In other words, the incentive and final decision rest with the sewerage undertaker, as I know the Government wish.
Secondly, the sewerage undertaker retains control over the expenditure level—the investment level—that is considered to be necessary and is therefore exercising its managerial functions as it should do according to the Government's prescription for privatisation. I am not implying any support for the concept. I am saying that that is what the Government wish, and our amendment enables the undertaker to do so. Thirdly, the sewerage undertaker has the ability to demand from the local authority a firm commitment that it can and will carry out the appropriate level of work. Only under those circumstances is it proposed that the sewerage undertaker should enter into appropriate arrangements with the local authority.
I remind the Committee that all of this will not happen immediately. There is plenty of time for the scheme to be worked out. Schedule 25 states that the existing agency arrangements shall not be discontinued without reasonable notice. It suggests that they should continue until 1st April 1992. We are therefore a long way from any dramatic change in the relationship between local authorities and sewerage undertakings. We are proposing a rational and modest protection for local authorities: that they will be considered on a business-like basis by the sewerage authorities when the agency arrangements are reviewed in due course. That argument has not been effectively countered by the Government.
If the Committee will permit me to do so, having debated these three amendments together, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 340ZA. I shall seek the Commmittee's decision on Amendment No. 340ZB.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 340ZB:
Page 83, line 26, at end insert—
("1A) In deciding whether to enter into arrangements with a relevant authority in accordance with this section a sewerage undertaker shall—

(a) determine the appropriate level of annual planned expenditure necessary to ensure the proper discharge of its sewerage functions in the relevant area and

(b) seek a commitment from the relevant authority that it is able to perform the appropriate level of work necessary to secure the discharge of all the relevant functions within the planned expenditure level determined under paragraph (a) above

and where the relevant authority is able to provide such a commitment in writing the sewerage undertaker shall enter into appropriate arrangements with that relevant authority.".
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 340ZB) shall be agreed to to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Amherst, E.

Longford, E.

Ampthill, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Soper, L.

Hayter, L.

Stallard, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Walston, L.

Leatherland, L.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Annaly, L.

Foley, L.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Atholl, D.

Gainford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Belstead, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halsbury, E.

Birdwood, L.

Havers, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Blyth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Ironside, L.

Caithness, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cawley, L.

Killearn, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kimball, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Daventry, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

De Freyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Manton, L.

Donegall, M.

Margadale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Marley, L.

Effingham, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mersey, V.

18

Middleton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Milverton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Seebohm, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Somers, L.

Orkney, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strange, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Strathspey, L.

Porritt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Suffield, L.

Quinton, L.

Swansea, L.

Radnor, E.

Terrington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Reigate, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Richardson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Westbury, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Wolfson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 340ZC:
Page 83, line 26, at end insert—
("(1A) In determining whether to enter into arrangements with a relevant authority in accordance with this section a sewerage undertaker shall ensure that the relevant authority is notified of any decision to seek tenders for any work connected with the discharge of its sewerage functions and in any event shall ensure that design work comprising forward planning of schemes, preparation of contracts, and site supervision and work incidental and ancillary thereto shall be subject to a tendering process which shall include participation by the relevant authority if it so wishes.
(1B) Any tender for design work sought under subsection (1A) above shall be for a minimum period of five years and the procedure for seeking such tenders shall be determined by the Secretary of State and specified in Regulations.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will not feel that we are going over the same ground. This is a different amendment; it is significantly more modest. The Government did not argue against my previous amendment and the Committee did not care for it. I hope therefore that both the Government and the Committee might find this amendment more acceptable. I am speaking also to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Amendment No. 340A and to Amendments Nos. 346A and 346B.
All we are asking is that local authorities should be notified of a decision to put sewerage work out to tender so that they can be involved in the process. The amendment specifies that certain kinds of work shall be put out to tender—design work, forward planning of schemes, preparation of contracts, site supervision and work incidental and ancillary to design work. We suggest that this kind of work should be tendered for a minimum of five years. And we propose that the Secretary of State should be able, through regulation, to specify the procedure for issuing tenders.
The Government supported by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, have said that they wish, broadly speaking, to see a continuation of the division of

19
responsibility as it is now between the regional water authorities and the local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was fairly precise. He thought that the same kind of balance ought to pertain after privatisation.
Will the Minister give a guarantee that local authorities will have a right to tender? If he is prepared to give that guarantee, then some of the justification for the amendment disappears. If it is intended that the private sector shall have the opportunity to tender for work, surely local authorities should have the same right in the areas in which, perhaps for many years, they have provided a service.
In the amendment we suggest that local authorities are particularly appropriate to tender for the design work, contract preparation and site supervision. In asking for the guarantee we should be happy to accept it from the mouth of the Minister rather than seeking the view of the Committee. I hope that it will be felt that the amendment is in line with government policy; and moreover, that it will be felt that it provides a measure of protection for local authorities so that they will at least be considered when the tendering process is undertaken. The tendering process should include them.
Amendment No. 446B, tabled in my name, is concerned with the continuation of employment rights when agency arrangements are terminated by the contractor. That means that perhaps some local authority staff will lose their jobs as a result of the termination of the tendering and agency process and they may not be offered jobs by the successor to the local authority as agents for the sewerage work. The amendment proposes that such people shall be eligible to receive compensation in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
The matter arises in respect of almost every proposal for privatisation. It is a matter about which the trade unions concerned have a right and proper concern for the interests of their members. I hope that the Government will consider that it is in line with the practice which has been adopted in previous privatisation proposals. Also, I hope that there will be no difficulty about securing the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations—which is all we ask—to secure that compensation will be available for those who lose their jobs as a result of the privatisation process. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Is it really necessary for the Committee to write such details into this already lengthy statute? If the seeking of tenders is to be published, the local authority has only to look out for the advertisement and to tender. If tenders are not to be published, I believe that it will be simple for the local authority to let the sewerage undertaker know that it would like to tender if the need for tenders should arise. Surely it is better to leave it to those two alternatives than to have to write this further detail into the Bill.
Lord Ross of Newport: It may be the case that Amendment No. 340A will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I wish to speak to that and also to
20
Amendment No. 446A. If the sewerage undertaker refuses to continue with an agency agreement, it should at the very least be required to show why it has taken the decision. The decision should be justified, first, in terms of proper value for money—and that should appeal to a cost-conscious government. Secondly, the decision should be justified in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of the sewerage functions being carried out either by the undertaker inhouse, if it does not wish to go to the district council, or of putting them out to an outside contractor. In Amendment No. 340A we ask that the local authority should be told why the undertaker wishes to do the job himself or put it out to an outside contractor. In a subsequent amendment we ask that the local authority should be allowed to tender.
That seems to be only common sense. I listened with great interest to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I understand that approximately 85 per cent. of the district councils carry out agency work. Therefore, there must be some which do not. However, they have all the plans. It will lead to an appalling mess if undertakers are to be allowed to set up their own inhouse contracting teams and if they demand from local authorities all the plans of the sewers, and so forth. The job has been carried out by the local authorities in one way or another for over a century. They are the natural people to do it. Obviously, it is right that they should do it as cheaply and efficiently as possible, and that is what the amendment is about.
Amendment No. 446A has been moved at the suggestion of the Association of District Councils. We are saying that 1992 is a little too early to get all the act together, and that the time should be extended to 1995. If they so wish, the water authorities can give notice of termination in April 1993, and that will come into effect in April 1995.
For the reasons I have mentioned concerning the difficulties about the plans for the sewers and so forth, it is only common sense to allow more time for the authorities to put their house in order. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the suggestion.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 340ZC requires the undertaker to notify the authority of any decision to seek tenders for work connected with the discharge of its sewerage functions. I shall deal with it together with Amendment No. 340A which requires the undertaker to give the authority an opportunity to tender for those functions where a sewerage undertaker refuses to enter into an arrangement with a local authority which that authority has indicated that it wishes to retain or to undertake for the first time.
I assume that, in drawing up these amendments, Members of the Committee had in mind the Government's support for certain public sector activities being put out to tender. This initiative, however, has been introduced because there are not satisfactory mechanisms to encourage efficiency in all areas of public sector activity. Tendering in these

21
areas provides a spur to greater efficiency through allowing competition. But the sewerage undertakers will by definition be in the private sector where the profit motive will give the necessary incentive to efficiency. We cannot see that any practical purpose would be served by requiring an undertaker to seek a tender from an authority which, as Amendment No. 340A suggests, the undertaker does not intend to employ. It would make no more sense to oblige the undertaker to notify a local authority that work was being put out to tender, as Amendment No. 340ZC would require. Undertakers must be free to seek tenders from whatever parties they wish. As I said in replying to earlier amendments today, there is no doubt that many undertakers will be keen to continue existing arrangements with local authorities.
The effect of the next amendment, No. 446A, which relates to paragraph 15 of Schedule 25, is to ensure that any notice to terminate, which sewerage undertakers serve on local authorities who currently act as their agents, could not take effect before 1st April 1995, instead of 1st April 1992 as the Bill proposes.
The effect of the provisions of Schedule 25 is that, unless otherwise agreed, any termination arrangements in existing agreements will continue to apply to agency staff; so from that point of view there is no case for postponing the date. I should be very reluctant to believe that where there are to be changes, local authorities' agents need the extra three years to prepare to relinquish their agency functions. They have already had three years or so to prepare for possible changes, because our consultation paper which set out our proposals for the sewerage agency arrangements appeared in 1986. They still have another three years to prepare before 1992. In allowing this period of time we have had full regard to the need to ensure that transitional arrangements are handled sensitively. Any undertaker who does give notice to a local authority agent will be responsible for ensuring that the new arrangements work properly from day 1, so notice will certainly not be lightly given. In the circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment constitutes delaying the day.
The last amendment, No. 446B, has the effect of making local authority sewerage agency staff eligible for compensation where the agency arrangements are terminated by the undertaker and where the undertaker does not offer them employment. It could presumably affect either existing agency arrangements or new arrangements entered into under Clause 72 of the Act. However, in neither case does the amendment serve a useful purpose.
Clause 72, which enables authorities to enter into agency arrangements with undertakers, specifically provides that these arrangements may contain:
"any such provision as may be agreed",
between the parties. So any authority negotiating a new arrangement can itself decide what compensation provisions it wants. As I have already said, the clause is designed to give both parties as much freedom as possible. We certainly do not wish to hamper them by imposing restrictions of this nature.
22
That leaves existing arrangements between undertakers and authorities. I have already mentioned that the termination provisions in existing agreements will continue to apply to agency staff. That is only fair to all parties. The extent to which undertakers provide compensation is covered by these freely negotiated agreements. Payment of compensation by local authorities is covered by local authority conditions of service. There is no role here for the Secretary of State, and we do not wish to impose standard compensation provisions on the parties. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will resist these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made an effective intervention against only one part of my principal amendment. If my amendment said only that local authorities had to be notified of any tendering arrangement, I should agree with him that it is their responsibility to read the newspapers and to find out whether there is a tendering arrangement in their area and to tender if that is felt necessary. If they fail to do that, it is rather their own fault. However, that is not only what the amendment says. It states further that in any event the sewerage undertaking shall ensure:
"that design work comprising forward planning of schemes, preparation of contracts, and site supervision and work incidental and ancillary thereto shall be subject to a tendering process which shall include participation by the relevant authority if it so wishes".
That goes slightly further than the part of the amendment to which the noble Lord refers and I believe that he would agree that he might not like that but it is not redundant in the Bill.
Lord Renton: Surely it comes to this: that the two parts of the noble Lord's amendment are interdependent. I seem to have turned his amendment into a sort of curate's egg.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is necessary that the relevant authorities should be notified of the decision in order to achieve the full and proper tendering process which we require, particularly for design work and forward planning—and that is something which I should have thought would be attractive to Members of the Committee on the Government Benches. The result of that seems to me coherent and not at all a curate's egg.
Also subsection (1B) of my amendment proposed that the tender for the design work should be for a minimum period of five years. Again, I believe that that is justifiable in business terms and it does not require any political ideology to see the justification for it. You clearly do not want to go changing the design work and forward planning of a sewerage system at frequent intervals. You want to have a contract which is long enough to take effect in a business that is as capital intensive as the sewerage business.
Therefore, I do not feel that Amendment No. 340ZC is either redundant or is contrary to the spirit of the Bill. However, the Government seem to have set their face against it and I very much regret that.

23
As regards Amendment No. 446B, the Government seem to think that agreement between the local authority holding the former agency and the sewerage undertaking is a satisfactory protection for those members of staff who will lose their jobs. I simply point out that there is an inevitable conflict of interests between the sewerage undertaking reallocating the agency contract and the previous agent. The sewerage undertaking is concerned to save as much money as possible and the local authority, quite reasonably, is concerned to protect the interests of those members of its staff losing their jobs. I do not believe that compensation by agreement under those circumstances makes any sense whatever. This is a matter to which we may have to return at a later stage, but in the meantime, for the reasons suggested, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

The Gurkhas: Future
3.56 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement about the future of the Gurkhas which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas. We have been considering the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas after the United Kingdom withdraws from Hong Kong in 1997. We recognise the concerns of the Gurkhas about their future. But there are many uncertainties inherent in trying to look this far ahead.
"The international scene is currently in a period of change with welcome improvements in East-West relations and correspondingly better prospects for progress in conventional arms control. Domestically, as a result of demographic factors, the number of young people from whom the Army must recruit is now well below the level of recent years and will continue to be so into the 21st century. Inevitably recruiting into the British Army will become more difficult as a result. It is not possible therefore to be definitive at this stage about the future for the Gurkhas after 1997. Major changes in circumstances in the interim, particularly in the size of the British Army as a whole—or developments in the future manning situation—may require us to reconsider.
"However, on the basis of the information available at present, I have decided that although the Hong Kong commitment will have ceased, we should plan on a future for the Gurkhas after 1997 based on a viable brigade structure. At present,
24
we see this force being a balance of four Gurkha infantry battalions, squadrons of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, the Queen's Gurkha Signals and the Gurkha Transport Regiment, together with the necessary infrastructure. It would comprise about 4,000 personnel. I would expect the future Gurkha force to have roles that lie within the mainstream of the Army's defence commitments, including as now, a substantial Gurkha presence in the United Kingdom.
"There will be a progressive restructuring towards the new force over several years. The timing of these changes will depend on both the commitments and circumstances facing the entire British Army at the time, and in particular, on the extent to which it is possible to recruit and retain British soldiers within the Army in the face of the demographic difficulties. These difficulties may also lead us to increase the number of Gurkhas to be retained. If necessary this can be considered at a later stage. The present arrangements with the Government of Nepal whereby Gurkhas are recruited and discharged in Nepal and remain Nepalese citizens at all times will continue.
"No change in the current deployment of Gurkhas is envisaged until withdrawal of a battalion from Hong Kong takes place, which would not be before 1992. No major decisions are needed on the future of this battalion until next year, when we shall have a clearer picture of the impact of demographic trends on Army manning.
"The House will wish to know that the Government of Nepal have been informed in advance of our plans.
"Finally, I should like to emphasise that the Gurkhas have served the Crown with distinction since 1815. They have fought alongside British troops in many theatres, including two world wars and the Malayan emergency; and most recently they served in the Falklands campaign. This announcement contains the elements necessary to demonstrate to the Gurkhas that we are planning for them to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army after our withdrawal from Hong Kong. As such, it will, I am sure, be welcomed by them, by this House and by the country at large."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, may I say to the Leader of the House how warmly we on this side of the House welcome this Statement which has put an end to the uncertainty of the past three or four years? We have not had time carefully to study the Statement but it appears that it accepts the main recommendations of the Defence Committee of another place, particularly in regard to the maintenance of a viable brigade structure and, indeed, that the future Gurkha force will have a role that lies within the mainstream of the Army's defence commitments, including, as now, a substantial Gurkha presence in the United Kingdom.
Will the noble Lord say whether there are any major recommendations of the Defence Committee

25
that the Government have not been able to accept, and why? We also understand that there will be a progressive restructuring of the new force over several years and we hope that the noble Lord will keep the House informed of those changes. Our own difficulties may be assisted by the further recruitment of Gurkhas in numbers equivalent to our own shortage in recruitment and retention.
There is no doubt that the Statement will be welcomed in Nepal but it will also be welcomed throughout the country because people will be pleased to know that the loyal, courageous and distinguished service that the Gurkhas have given since 1815 to the British Crown will be continued and will be assured for the future.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, from these Benches we also warmly welcome the Government's Statement, despite the element of uncertainty that it contains about the longer term future. Will the noble Lord accept that I can speak, from the testimony of nearly 60 years with Gurkha soldiers, of their exceptional qualities of loyalty, courage and fighting skills, both in peace and in war? There is an extraordinary desire among the tribal people in Nepal, from whom we have traditionally recruited Gurkha soldiers, to continue that service with the British Army.
Is the noble Lord aware that the presence of Gurkhas in the British Army is a most important asset for the Government of Nepal and that Gurkha soldiers are a considerable asset when they retire and return to their villages with all their experience? Will the noble Lord bear in mind these matters in any future longer term decisions that are made?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, was, if I may say so, absolutely right that much of what the House of Commons Defence Committee recommended is picked up and fulfilled in the Statement which I have just repeated. The noble Lord asked whether there were any points which the Government are not accepting. There are recommendations in the House of Commons Defence Committee report about the Dharan base in Nepal and the British hospital there.
Perhaps I may make two comments in that respect. First, the key point about Dharan is that it is not connected with the future of the Gurkhas. As the House of Commons Defence Committee acknowledged, Dharan as it is now is a no longer required for current defence purposes. These arguments are set out in full in a response to the Defence Committee of another place which is being published simultaneously with the announcement of this Statement today.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his response. He asked whether the Government are aware of the importance of the Gurkhas and of their influence in their own home country. Yes, I take to heart what the noble Lord said. It is particularly because of the first point made by the noble Lord that one of the key aspects of my right honourable friend's Statement this afternoon is that the future
26
of the Gurkhas will be within the mainstream of the operations of the British Army in the future.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, as someone who has been closely connected with the Gurkhas for a number of years I add my welcome to the announcement made by the Leader of the House on a worthwhile and viable future for the brigade after 1997. The Government have kept faith with the hill men of Nepal who have for over 170 years never failed to rally to this country's support however adverse the circumstances or gloomy the forecast and who in large numbers have laid down their lives with the utmost gallantry for our security and our future. At the same time—emotion and gratitude apart—the Government have sensibly assured a continuing supply of some of the finest infantry men in the world to reinforce and supplement our own proud regiments for the inevitably unexpected emergencies with which our history is riddled.
I particularly liked the flexibility implied in the Statement, perhaps allowing for expansion as well as contraction within viable limits as circumstances demand. Certainly in the shorter term, while we are responsible for the stability and security of Hong Kong, and with all the upheaval in China, the date mentioned as the earliest for any reduction of even one battalion in the garrison at Hong Kong is surely to be later rather than sooner. While the British Army is experiencing such difficulty in recruiting and retaining adequate manpower there can be little, if any, justification for restricting the present strengths or numbers of Gurkha units. However, the wording of the Statement gives me confidence that the Government will very much bear that point in mind.
Now that this re-investment has been confirmed, would it not be a good moment for Her Majesty's Government to use their good offices to help resolve this disastrous dispute between the kingdom of Nepal and India which is bringing such hardship to the land-locked hill kingdom of Nepal?
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure that we all warmly welcome the Statement that has been made. May I ask the Minister to assure the House that the future pay and conditions of the Gurkha regiments will be commensurate with the praise that has been rightly bestowed upon them?
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I am most grateful to him for his generous words about the effect of the Statement. The noble and gallant Lord particularly appreciated the flexibility in the Statement. Yes, indeed, it is the case that the Statement allows for expansion if demographic trends require it. However, I simply emphasise that the basis of this Statement is not related to demographic trends; it is made for all the reasons that the noble and gallant Lord and others have given this afternoon; namely, that these fine soldiers will be needed within the mainstream of the work of the British Army in the future.

27
The noble and gallant Lord also asked whether the British Government will be keeping a close eye on the Hong Kong situation. Yes, of course, we will. His other point concerned the Indo-Nepalese dispute. I would simply say that we very much regret that a dispute has arisen between two countries with which we enjoy close and friendly relations. Of course, we hope for a settlement in the future.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that matters of pay, together with many other details, will obviously be considered on an on-going basis in the future but I take the point made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend see to it that in some way or other the enthusiasm which all quarters of this House have shown on this announcement for the continuance of this magnificent unit is conveyed to the Brigade of Gurkhas itself and perhaps also to the Government of Nepal? It should be made clear to them how much opinion generally in this country values their association with British arms.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement will be welcomed not only in Hong Kong and this country but also in Nepal where the result of the government inquiry will be watched with close concentration and some anxiety? Will my noble friend confirm that the Government's intention is to continue to station a Gurkha battalion in Brunei until further notice? Is my noble friend aware that the Sultan of Brunei has indicated that he might be prepared to have a second battalion stationed in Brunei? Has that been given consideration?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I shall see that the views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon are drawn to the attention of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I know that there will be widespread satisfaction in that quarter at what has been said in this House this afternoon. As regards Brunei, I can confirm that one battalion will continue there. This is an agreement with the Sultan and it is reviewed periodically. We see value in a continued presence. I shall not go further than that this afternoon.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, perhaps I may, rather boldly, add a few words to what the noble and gallant Lord has already said. The Gurkhas have one quality which is quite extraordinary and that is their social quality. They can settle down in any community with any race and they seem to be entirely at ease. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will agree entirely with me in that regard. They do not chase women and they do not drink. They may have a glass of beer occasionally and play a little football. They have none of those attributes which make armies of occupation utterly unacceptable. For those reasons they are a quite unique body of people.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, once again I know that that view will be drawn to the attention of those concerned.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Statement announces a major decision next year as regards the battalion to be withdrawn from Hong Kong? In view of the very positive and welcome nature of this Statement, can we assume that this is a decision about the role and function of the battalion and not about its continuance as a battalion?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we shall have to see what the demographic trends show and what the situation is when the moment comes. The moment for the withdrawal of that battalion has not come and it will not arrive until at least 1992. Decisions will not have to be taken on that matter until some time next year.

Water Bill
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 72.
[Amendments Nos. 340ZD and 340A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 340B:
Page 83, line 45, at end insert—
("(4A) Where a sewerage undertaker refuses to enter into an arrangement with a relevant authority to carry out on behalf of the undertaker such of that undertaker's sewerage functions which the relevant authority has indicated that it wishes to retain or to undertake for the first time, the sewerage undertaker shall publish the reasons for its refusal, and in so doing, shall make reference to a comparison, based on the criterion of value-for-money, of the relative ability of the sewerage undertaker and the relevant authority to carry out the sewerage functions.").
The noble Lord said: We are trying another refrain on the same theme as was being pursued before we adjourned for the Statement to be taken. Before I deal with the amendment itself perhaps I may say that I am sure Members of the Committee appreciate that local authorities and water undertakers are inexorably linked in all ways. It is normally the district council that is the planning authority and it is that authority that will want to bring land into use and have houses built besides having sewers laid. Therefore there must be the closest co-operation between the water undertakers and local authorities. As regards this amendment we are being consistent, because we suggested it in an earlier amendment, which I believe was discussed the week before last, that some of the work that needed to be done should go out to tender.
In this amendment we are saying that where undertakers decide not to continue on an agency basis with the local authority they should publish their reasons for so doing. In addition, they should also make reference to the cost comparisons so that the public will know that the undertakers are doing this work in the most efficient and cost-effective way. The public will want to know why it is that local authorities are not being employed. That is

29
perfectly fair and a statement can be made to that effect. In addition some indication of the difference in costs should also be made public. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 340B would have effect where a sewerage undertaker refused to enter into an arrangement with a local authority which wished either to retain the agency function or to undertake it for the first time. It is an alternative to Amendment No. 340A and requires the undertaker to publish the reasons for its refusal, with reference to a value-for-money comparison of the relative ability of the undertaker and the authority to perform those functions.
I must stress that the Bill ensures that the undertakers will be answerable to the Secretary of State for failure to meet specified standards of service. Undertakers, who will be limited on the charges they can make, will have every incentive, when considering how to deliver these standards, to base their decisions on the grounds of efficiency and value for money. Nothing would be achieved by requiring them to publish their reasons for not choosing to use a local authority as sewerage agent. The amendment itself does not require any action to flow from the publication of this information. For this reason I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am not surprised by that answer. However I do not believe that the Government are being consistent in their attitude to the public or the private sector. I believe that when the Government privatise this industry some of the authorities should be obliged to go out to tender. I did not expect a different answer and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 340C:
Page 84, line 32, at end insert—
("For the purposes only of section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 the definition of a public body shall include a sewerage undertaker.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment does not in any way go over the ground that has already been covered as regards existing amendments. It seeks to make a specific change to the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 in order to accommodate the possibility that, even under this clause, as it has now been agreed, the local authorities will be able to take on the role of sewerage agent for the sewerage undertakers. Section 1 of the 1970 Act allows local authorities to enter into contracts with other local authorities and public bodies. As regards those bodies it allows them to supply goods and materials; administrative, professional and technical services as well as vehicles, plant and associated staff and to carry out maintenance works. If the agency agreement is to continue after privatisation, then local authorities must have the ability to provide those services trading with private bodies, as the sewerage undertaking plcs will be. At the moment it would be ultra vires for them.
The amendment is very narrowly phrased. It refers only to the functions under subsection (1) of the
30
clause and it does not seek to open up a whole new range of opportunities for local authorities. We argue that this amendment is consistent with the Government's intention and it should not in any way endanger the rights of the sewerage undertakers who will be formed under the Bill. It regularises the position of local authorities who, under the conditions of Clause 72, in the end continue as agents for the sewerage undertakers. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Is not this amendment rather restrictive? For many years I have had a metered water supply and that is more common in rural places than elsewhere. Next door to me is a farm where the water is metered in several different places and in several different ways. Amendment No. 348A is the operative one and the amendment actually being moved by the noble Lord is merely a paving amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. I am moving only Amendment No. 340C. Amendment No. 348A is grouped with Amendment No. 345ZA.
Lord Renton: I am sorry, I misheard.
Lord Hesketh: We now reach Amendment No. 340C which enables local authorities, through a widening of a definition of public bodies under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, to enter into arrangements to provide all water and sewerage undertakers with goods or services or to carry out works and maintenance in connection with land or buildings for which the undertaker is responsible.
If this amendment had any useful purpose, it would have been in relation to the clauses about the role and functions of sewerage undertakers. Placed in Clause 72, it is not relevant, because subsection (2) of the clause plainly states:
"Arrangements entered into for the purposes of this section may contain any such provision as may be agreed between the relevant authority and the sewerage undertaker".
Local authorities which are agents can exercise enacted powers on the undertaker's behalf. When the clause itself ensures that there is no restriction on the form of sewerage agency agreements, an amendment aimed at removing the restrictions is not necessary. It is for this reason that we ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that explanation. Is the Minister saying that the restrictions of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act do not apply not just in Clause 72 but elsewhere in the Bill? In other words, is he saying that no danger arises from conflict between this Bill and the 1970 Act?
Lord Hesketh: I specifically referred to this clause and to the arrangements, and not to other clauses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the Minister able to give a comparable assurance for other parts of the Bill? I noted carefully that he referred only to Clause 72, which is why I am raising this question now and giving him time to obtain an answer.
Lord Hesketh: I can go no further than repeat exactly what I said before. It is a reference purely to this clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the noble Lord therefore be good enough to write to me and tell me whether there is any potential for conflict between the 1970 Act and this Bill? Will he do so in time to allow me, if necessary, to move another amendment at a later stage? On that understanding, which I wish to record in Hansard as being given by the Minister, I thank him for his explanation about Clause 72 and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Control of Exercise of Trade Effluent Functions in certain Cases]:
[Amendments Nos. 341 to 345 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Powers of undertakers to charge]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 345ZA:
Page 85, line 1, after ("charges") insert ("in accordance with section 77(1A) below").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I wish to move Amendment No. 345ZA and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 348A. Amendment No. 345ZA is by way of a paving amendment. The key intention is contained in the words of Amendment No. 348A. We are here concerned with the question of metering. The effect of Amendment No. 348A, if it were accepted by the Committee, would be as follows:
"In determining any such charges, every undertaker shall offer to each domestic consumer at least one option for arrival at such a determination which does not entail measurement by volume of water supplied to, or of effluent discharged from any premises".
As the Bill stands, under Clause 74(3) the public companies to be set up under the Bill will be allowed to,
"adopt such methods and principles for the calculation and imposition of the charges, as appear to the undertaker to be appropriate".
There are two qualifiers to this power. Water meters will be available on request to individuals, which is the case at the present time, and charges cannot be fixed by reference to the rateable value of a property after 31st March 2000. In effect the new water companies will be able to decide how they charge for water. In some areas it seems likely that there will be a switch to universal metering. Not all companies will want to switch to metering, however. For example, the Welsh Water Authority has said that it would prefer a flat rate charge, rather like a licence fee.
Our concern with the principle of metering, which, as I have said, is likely to be the method chosen by the plcs for charging, is that it will bear disproportionately hard on those members of the community who have to exist on low incomes. Many such people draw benefits of one kind or another.
32
There are also people in employment who draw benefit. The Government's proposal to abolish wages councils will remove from a very large section of the working population the protection which they currently enjoy as regards minimum wage rates. If enacted one can expect a large increase in the number of people who will be consumers of water but who will not be protected as regards wages.
In addition, all the available information—I think this is common ground—shows that there is likely to be a substantial increase in the price of water both in money terms and in real terms. I do not believe there is any dispute that the requirements which are to be placed on the plcs are such that they will need substantially to increase their charges. To that extent metering will reflect accurately the costs which have to be borne by the users of water. We are of the opinion that some protection is necessary in these circumstances because very often people in low income groups are substantial users of water. They may be families with fairly large numbers of children or families which, as a result of handicaps of one kind or another, also require to use substantial amounts of water. For these reasons we believe that some form of protection is necessary.
At the present time 99 per cent. of consumers pay for their water through the rating system. That system will end next year when the community charge is introduced. Most people who have been asked about this subject are of the opinion that the rating system is a fair basis of payment for water. Any switch from rating to metering, leaving aside the cost of installing the meter, which is likely to be borne by the consumer over the long term, is likely to bear disproportionately hard on those people least able to bear it.
There are also technical problems. First, leaks may have an effect on the meter reading. I understand that the water authorities will accept any difference arising from a leakage once from the company's main to the consumer but that thereafter, if there are substantial leaks resulting in an increase in water consumption as recorded by the meter, the consumer will have to pay. This introduces, under a system of metering, a new hazard for the consumer and one against which we feel he or she should be protected.
In addition, the health dangers which may arise if the consumer decides to economise by underconsuming water are fairly considerable. In recent months we have been made well aware of the scares concerning food hygiene, and of the advice given by the authorities to consumers in the matter of domestic hygiene. They have been told that all surfaces must at all times be clean; and, for example, they must not mix uncooked food with cooked food. The whole of the emphasis is that in the home at least protection for consumers is bound up with the extent to which consumers are able to practice good hygiene methods at all times. For people in low income groups this may not be consistent with a system of metering.
The experience in this country of charges by metering for domestic consumers is minimal. I understand that in the town of Malvern it has been in use for more than 100 years. However, in the vast majority of areas no such experience exists, and such

33
experiments as have taken place of which we have any information do not lead us to believe that it is likely to be a satisfactory method applied universally.
In Scotland I am told that a water poll tax operates, although given the well documented problems of the polls tax we are not suggesting that this course is necessarily to be recommended. In Wales the single standard property charge is to apply. In the North-East, the Northumbrian area water consumers panels have proposed a banded property charge. Any property charge would of course have to be structured in such a way as to avoid falling foul of Clause 78. Therefore, looking at the problem in the round so to speak we feel that there is a case for giving the consumer an option other than a meter and that would be the purpose that we envisage under Amendment No. 348A.
I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to look sympathetically at this issue, which, as I have said, is of concern to low income groups. I also hope that he will be able to give us a response which encourages us to believe that there is a solution other than that which is currently in the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has made a very informative speech for which we should be grateful. He has convered an interesting and quite controversial topic in a succinct way. I tend to agree with him that for many people—that is, people of modest means—compulsory metering could be a bit of a burden. But, on the other hand, we do not want to go to the other extreme, which this amendment would do.
As I was saying when I wrongly spoke to this amendment prematurely, I have been on a metered supply for many years. I hope that that has not caused me to economise in personal hygiene in any way. However, in household work people just do not think about using the necessary amount of water; it has to be used, and it is used.
We have not been told of any intention to encourage the new undertakers to go for metering in a general way and there is no suggestion of that in the Bill. Moreover, I do not suppose that they will do so. However, I see no harm in experiments being carried out locally. Also, as I was saying, many houses, especially in rural areas, are already on a metered supply. Many farms are also on a metered supply, partly because they prefer it. On farms and dairies where there are cattle and where large quantities of water are used, there is a preference for metered supplies.
Therefore, let us not write into the Bill anything quite as restrictive as this amendment appears to me to be. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable. But, having said that, I shall be most interested to know what the Government's attitude is to the possibility of metering.
Baroness White: I should like to support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that so far as concerns farms—which are businesses, after all—metering is obviously the most
34
appropriate method of determining payment. However, I think that I am correct in saying that one reason for the position in Wales being determined on a different basis is that the water authority has found in its experiments with metering so far that it has been losing money rapidly due to the economies observed by some of the people being metered. It has therefore been decided that it is not a very good bargain for the water authority. I do not say that that condition necessarily applies in other parts of the country. However, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Gallacher said; namely, that to insist upon compulsory metering in all circumstances is not socially a desirable or beneficial procedure.
Experimenting is one thing, but there are many circumstances in which a family needs to have a larger supply than its level of income can possibly afford. In families with large numbers of children, or in the case of people with elderly relatives who have problems of incontinence, laundry and so on, it can cause real hardship. I am all for anything to do with a commercial aspect of life being metered. That seems to me to be proper and business like. However, one must be careful about the social arrangements. I hope therefore that the Government will encourage the water undertakers to adopt a more flexible policy in this respect such as that suggested in the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): If one thinks about it giving customers the option of not being metered or switching from paying on a measured basis to an unmeasured basis is clearly not a practical proposition. Each undertaker should have, within the constraints imposed by the conditions of the licence, freedom to charge its customers on whatever basis it considers most appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned but a few of the various alternatives.
The fairness of widespread metering as a charging system clearly depends on metering being applied to those customers who may lose as well as those who may gain financially. The Government cannot accept that widespread compulsory metering should be ruled out on grounds that customers should not pay more if they use more water. We all accept that it is perfectly reasonable to pay for what you use in the case of gas, electricity and other essential commodities such as food.
Therefore I ask the noble Lord why water should be any different. Further, experience indicates that metering does not lead to a decline in health standards and there is no reason to suggest that it will do so in this connection.
On a technical point, perhaps I may point out that the term "domestic consumers" which appears in Amendment No. 348A is not used in the Bill. The Committee will not find a definition of that term in the general interpretation clause, Clause 182. Therefore that would lead to confusion. It is not clear whether it would extend to customers who received a supply of water for domestic purposes. Many supplies to offices and industrial premises fall within that definition. In consequence, the

35
amendments may have the effect of prohibiting undertakers from metering compulsorily many of their non-domestic customers.
Perhaps I may pick up some of the points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, was most concerned about low income families. This is a concern shared by all Members of the Committee. Of course trials have been carried out throughout the country—indeed, there are 12 areas in which such trials are being undertaken—and that will help to assess what impact metering has on people.
However, the noble Lord was right to point out that there has been metering for some considerable time, starting in the last century, in Malvern, where most people, although they have been offered alternative sources of charging, find that metering is the preferable way forward once they are used to it and have familiarised themselves with it.
No one speaks with more authority in this Chamber than my noble friend Lord Renton, who from his own experience knows the benefits that metering can bring. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that the price of water would increase. Yes, it will increase; but that will be due to meeting higher standards which we now wish to meet, and it will not necessarily be due to metering, a flat charge or any other form of charging.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also mentioned leaks from the point of the meter to the stopcock in the house. It is interesting to note what has happened in the Isle of Wight. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, is now back in his place. I had thought that he might join in this discussion on metering as the whole of the Isle of Wight is being metered. There it has been found that only a small percentage of houses—much lower than expected—have such a leak in the short area of pipe between the meter and the stopcock. Therefore there is encouragement in that direction.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I understand from my ex-constituents that one can in fact put a separate meter in between the boundary where the undertaker provides the water supply to the house at a cost of £15. In that way one can check whether there is a leak in the pipe between the mains and where the water comes into the house.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the noble Lord's contribution. We must realise that water is a cheap commodity in this country, although it will inevitably, for the reasons which I have given, become more expensive. For a 10-litre flush on a lavatory it costs 0.6p or thereabouts; for a shower one might use 30 litres and the cost is 1.9p; and for a washing machine the cost is 4.9p.
Baroness Lockwood: I am very disappointed in the Minister's response. When I raised the question on metering on Second Reading he said that I had made the mistake of linking it with the privatisation of water. It is quite clear from the discussion which has taken place that there will be an increase in metering as a result of the privatisation of water and the
36
introduction of the community charge. I think that the Minister is underestimating the effect that this is likely to have on consumers.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has not economised in the use of water in his household in any way which would affect hygiene. However, I wonder whether this will apply in all cases. For example, the Wakefield district is one of the areas where a trial of water metering is taking place, and it has been found that the cost to a family of four is likely to increase by £50 per annum and to a family of five by £100. In the context of the low income groups, this will be a very considerable problem.
In Yorkshire and Humberside, despite the decline in coal mining and steel manufacturing, there is still a high preponderance of that type of industry. That has led to a greater use of washing machines in the Yorkshire region than the national average. On the other hand, within Yorkshire and Humberside the average income is 17 per cent. below the national average.
There is also a problem for people who are on income support. Under the old scheme they were given an allowance for the water that they used, but under the new scheme an allowance is supposed to be built in to the basic rate. Nevertheless, there is the difficulty of the allowance keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living. If there is to be an increase in charges for water as everyone seems to accept will be the case, that will be reflected in the inflation rate. Nevertheless, it will bear more heavily on those who are in need of income support, and they will not get the full effect of the extra charge as they would under the old system.
This amendment would provide one of the answers to the problem. It would ensure that there was an alternative. I think that the flat rate alternative, or the licence, as my noble friend called it, is the kind of alternative that we should have, particularly for those people who cannot afford to pay both the higher charges and perhaps a metering charge for what is an essential commodity not only in the interests of a particular household but in the interests of the community.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I support these amendments in a Welsh context. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister's reasons for rejecting these two amendments. The first reason was that it was not a practical proposition. When the noble Lord said that, I thought that we might hear something really profound, perhaps from a technological point of view, which would show why this was not a practical proposition. However, the noble Lord's support for that statement was the general remark:
"We all, on whatever side of the House we care to sit, are in sympathy with the low income group".
However, he implies that it does not matter about these low income groups, of which there are thousands in Wales.
Last weekend when I was in Pembrokeshire I was asked what would happen in relation to metering and the supply of water. Many people there should

37
be protected from general metering which might be imposed for practical reasons of raising money.
The Minister said that experiments were being carried out in some parts of the country to discover whether the low income groups would be affected by general metering. I should be grateful if he could tell us more about that matter because the information might be of some use to us in this debate.
This amendment is designed to assist those in the low income group and to protect them against wholsesale metering. We have no reason to believe that there would not be wholesale metering. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was good enough to say that he thought that there would not be wholesale metering. I do not know upon what evidence he bases that statement. From my experience in Wales there is a fear among the thousands of people in the low income group that metering will impose a very great charge on them which is totally disproportionate to their position.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Trafford: I am puzzled by one factor which has been put forward by both Benches opposite, and that is the assumption that if one meters the amount of water which is consumed, it will inevitably cost more than a flat rate. It would not be very difficult for a water undertaker to set two rates, one a flat rate and one a metered rate. The only rate that the consumer could control in any way would be the metered rate.
One noble Lord said that in Wales, where they had put in meters, it had been detrimental to the water authority because the amount consumed had decreased. Whether that was so or not, the point is that there is an option in the meter system as to how much one consumes. With a flat rate system there is no option.
I am not certain, with due respect to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, why, leaving aside any question of the built-in charges to benefits, it is automatically assumed that a flat rate system is more beneficial to the consumer. My experience of water metering is strictly limited but it would seem to me that some people gain from it and some people lose. I suppose that that is true of most systems of charging. What is the basis of the assumption that the fixed rate would be more or less beneficial to lower income people, or anybody else come to that, than metering?
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that I pointed out in my comments that a trial had been undertaken in Wakefield which had shown that a family of four was likely to have to pay an increase of £50 per annum for its water bill and a family of five would have to pay an increase of £100.
Lord Trafford: With due respect to the noble Baroness, I am sure that she is right in what she says, but one would like to know the basis of this so-called experiment or test. Is the comparison being made with current water rate charges? Is it being made on the assumption that Wakefield would charge a
38
specific flat rate? There are so many difficulties. My question was not designed in that way; it was a simple one. Why is it automatically assumed that a consumer regulated metering of water will be that much more expensive than an across-the-board flat rate?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to be quite clear about the noble Lord's position in this debate. The amendment suggests, that there should be at least one option given to the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, refers to a flat rate and a metering rate. Would that not be support for this amendment—that there is an option given to the consumer as to whether they should go on a flat rate or a metering rate?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: There is one aspect of this debate which—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I asked the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, a question but I assume that he does not want to reply.
Lord Trafford: My noble friend was far more athletic than I and was on his feet in a flash. The reason why I asked a specific question was not because it was relevant to whether you have choice. I always tend to favour choice when this can be exercised. My view is that, in practical terms, exactly what the noble Lord has described is going to arise.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise to my noble friend if I pre-empted his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but there is one aspect of the debate which I think has been lost sight of. When the Government instituted the metering experiments in the Isle of Wight and a number of other areas it was widely believed that there was a lot of extravagant use of water not just by industrial and commercial users—the overwhelming majority of whom are already metered—but by domestic consumers. As a result not only was there the need for extra investment to meet the demand for water and all the consequences of that; there was also notably the need to flood areas of the country in order to provide extra reservoir capacity to meet the demand.
Noble Members of the Committee will be aware that there are few planning decisions which arouse greater fury from a local community than a decision that an area has to be dammed and flooded in order to provide additional reservoir capacity. I had to deal with some of the problems affecting Dartmoor, where an extremely well organised and powerful anti-reservoir lobby actually succeeded in holding up developments for many years, and there was considerable shortage of water.
There is also a conservation argument here. It is thought—this is what the experiments will be intended to establish—that if average consumers are aware of the additional cost of consuming additional water they will find that at very little inconvenience they can make a considerable reduction in the total amount of water that they consume.

39
To give one example, there are on the market forms of toilet flush which allow the consumer to opt for what I might call a large flush or a small flush. I do not think I need to go into further details as to which would be appropriate in which circumstances. The fact is that the small flush is perfectly adequate for the purpose for which it is intended and it uses less than half the amount of water of the large flush. At present there is absolutely no incentive for people to incur the cost of installing such a device in their own house. They pay a flat rate water charge based on rateable value, so why should they bother? No less a person than the Duke of Edinburgh has drawn attention to the considerable waste of water. He put it rather bluntly when he said: "You do a pint and flush away five gallons". That seems to me to say it all.
If supplies were metered, every consumer would have an incentive to be cautious in the use of water. Therefore, over a period this might avoid not only the extra cost of substantial investment but also the destruction of the countryside as more areas have to be flooded in order to provide reservoirs for extra supplies. It seems to me that it is in that context that one should be looking at metering.
I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Trafford that it is very difficult to compare what individual householders would pay with what is the benchmark: what would they be paying under a flat rate system which has not been introduced yet, or under some other system which has to be provided for by the year 2000 under this Bill, if water were not metered?
I am an unashamed advocate of metering because I believe that it will be a most valuable way of providing an effective nexus between supply and demand, and that in the long run it will be in the interests of consumers of this country as a whole.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It has been very interesting to hear the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that metering would be good for conservation. In fact, I wondered why the Minister had not raised that argument. Perhaps the reason was that he saw the report that I did a week or two ago which said that the amount of water used now per head is very little different from what it was 25 years ago. Although, generally speaking, we have had a flat rate water charge over the last 25 years, the actual amount of water used per person has hardly increased at all. I think the argument on conservation grounds is perhaps weakened by that item of news.
The argument is not a new one. It has been going on for many years. Indeed, it existed when I was the chairman of the land and works committee of the Thames Valley Water Board. Well over 20 years ago we considered whether we should install meters. There were many arguments for and many arguments against. We came down in favour of not installing meters because, on balance, the argument was against. One of the reason was that the water meter, being a mechanical device, first, is quite expensive to install; secondly, it is expensive to maintain; and, thirdly, it has to be read. Therefore,
40
it would be a very costly exercise, (a) because of the expense of installing, (b) because of high cost of maintenance, and (c) because of the large administrative cost of reading meters.
The situation may have moved on from there, but I have seen a recent estimate that installing meters throughout the country would cost about £1.3 billion. That is in addition to the already additional charges which will have to be borne in order to bring our water and sewerage systems up to date and to meet international standards.
There is also the public health argument. Water is unlike electricity or gas. It is unlike any other commodity because it is essential. We have heard this argument repeatedly during the debates on various clauses of the Bill. Water is a different commodity; it is a life support service, and it has very important public health implications.
Although we are now living in 1989, let us cast our minds back to the end of the last century when many people did not have metered supplies, or did not have any water supplies at all. At that time the incidence of cholera in this country was quite high. The Minister grins. He does not think that is relevant. The fact of the matter is that it was because there was no free-flowing, wholesome, good water that many diseases occurred in this country.
It is true that many families of five, six or seven will have to pay very much higher costs if supplies are metered. If they are poor people that is bound to have an effect on the amount of water they use for their personal hygiene and for washing clothes. I believe therefore, from a certain amount of background and experience, that there ought at least to be the option. People should at least to be able to maintain the present system which has lasted a long time and which has proved eminently satisfactory. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment or at least to say that he will take it away and give it some consideration.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may make one or two remarks. The Isle of Wight has been mentioned in connection with the experiment—one of 17—taking place. I believe that it is too early to answer the questions being raised because the trials are only just getting under way.
The point I was trying to make to the Minister earlier is that in some cases the meter is being put in the street, in others in the house. Meter sites vary in different roads. When people are concerned that there might be a leak in the pipe between the mains and where the water comes into the house, a separate meter can be put in at a cost of £15. Previously consumers would write to me complaining bitterly about water charges. If they wished to be metered the cost for the meter was about £60.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the case for paying for water actually used is unanswerable if we could only meter satisfactorily. We ought to go for it. However, there are many problems. What is to happen in sheltered accommodation blocks? There may be one meter where the water comes into the block and the housing

41
association representative has to sort out the costs between the various tenants. That is not easy, particularly with ladies who leave the bathwater running all night. We cannot meter the tenants separately.
The person able to invent the ball-valve on a WC system which did not allow the water to overflow would make a fortune. All over the country we see water spouting out of WC systems which go on running; it even ruins the walls in many places. Some action might be possible. If people were metered, perhaps they would move quicker. I have never been able to discover why we cannot have a fail-safe ball-valve system.
I object to paying a sewerage charge on a building that is not even on a sewer and has no water, but apparently because rain water enters the pipe which goes into the soil pipe there is a charge. I consider that unfair.
Having said that, I suppose Members of the Committee wish to know my views. The only business of which I am aware that has compared the costs before being metered and since was a semi-commercial building, a restaurant. The charges doubled. It is not fair to say, however, that that would necessarily be the case everywhere. I agree that if water can be metered adequately, that is the right way to go about it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I find myself, as I often do, seeing both sides of the question. Temperamentally, I am strongly in favour of metering. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has pointed out, metering is one way of conserving a scarce resource for which it is difficult and expensive to obtain the capital investment stake. In theory I would welcome turning over to metering.
However, my noble friend has just drawn attention to the major problem which lies ahead—the cost of it all. The cost of changing to a metering system is quite enormous. Were the cost to be carried by the public purse, it would not bother me greatly, except in my guise as a taxpayer. However, in a situation where the water industry will be governed by a dozen or so plcs, the cost will be borne by the consumer, the customer. This will bear very heavily on some parts of the community identified by my noble friend Baroness Lockwood. That is the answer to the question raised earlier by the noble Lord on the Government side, Lord Trafford, when he asked what was wrong with the flat rate system. The answer is that the flat rate system works, admittedly in a rough and ready, imperfect way, as a system of redistribution in the sense that the strong carry the weak. In a rough and ready way that is a socially desirable, though imperfect, way of paying for something such as water.
Metering is a good idea. We must, however, come up with a scheme the cost of which lies fairly on the community as a whole. The poorer members of the community should not be put at a serious disadvantage. My noble friend Lord Stoddart has shown how they would be put at a serious disadvantage and that cannot be ignored.
I have only one further point to make to my old friend and antagonist, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
42
He was quite right in saying that when the valleys were flooded there was a great hullabaloo. Afterwards they became known as great natural amenities. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that if anyone were to suggest taking away any of the great Victorian reservoirs there would be as great an outcry against their removal as there might be at the suggestion that we make yet another reservoir.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that the reasons why I did not use the conservation ground argument, as I might term it, which was so ably put by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, was that I had seen some article that he had read. No, that was not the reason. The reason was that I was dealing with the amendment and not entering upon a general debate about metering which the discussion on the amendment has inevitably turned into, as was perhaps only to be expected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised some quite important points about the scheme at south Normanton, Wakefield, which is one of the trial areas. For the record I should point out that the trial has not yet been approved; therefore, the figures which the noble Baroness has quoted are not be relied upon. When the Secretary of State has approved the scheme we shall be able to take some realistic figures from the trial area. At the moment it is premature to do so.
Many Members of the Committee again quite legitimately raised a point which we had covered previously—the cost of water to the low income family groups if the water were to be metered. The great advantage of meters is that we can change the tariff. We can have a tariff designed to encourage the use of water for essential health reasons. We can have a different tariff above that for consumption of water and a much greater tariff yet again for those who wish to water their lawns in the middle of a drought and those who wish to wash their car every day of the week. That is only right because we are using exactly the same water which it has been very costly to purify and to bring up to the right standard—drinking water standard—for the watering and the washing of a car.
So metering has an in-built flexibility which the flat rate does not have because we. can alter the tariffs. That is one of the things which we anticipate learning from the trials that are taking place.
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on trials. He wished to know more about them. Perhaps I may refer back to last year when we discussed the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill. I seem to recall that the noble Lord took part in the debate on that Bill. We discussed metering quite extensively because the Bill allowed us to carry out the metering trials. Those trials are not intended to show whether metering will be more or less efficient than any other non-metering charging system such as a flat rate charge. Among the aspects being examined in the trials are different meter locations, meter reading technology and billing systems, how customers react to a variety of tariffs, including the effect meter charging has on demand, public relations and the

43
costs of setting up and operating a large scale metering system. Information on the latter will largely come from the Isle of Wight trial scheme because it covers the largest number of properties. It covers something over 52,000 properties. The trials will run for three years. So much of what has been said about the effect of metering can be substantiated only when the trial period has come to an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, said that from his experience in his former constituency metering is a good idea but there are problems. The trials will sort out many of the problems which he mentioned. That is why it is right that the authorities should be the ones to decide at the end of the day which system they consider to be the right one for their area or part of their area.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was very concerned about the effect on Wales. However, I believe that I am right in saying that it was the noble Baroness, Lady White, who said that her information, which is also my information, is that Welsh Water had opted for a flat rate charge. Of course that too has adverse distribution effects. If we were to consider rateable values in Wales, something like 60 per cent. of the people would be worse off on a flat rate charge based on rateable values. Three cheers for getting rid of rates, so the people in Wales may not have to suffer the penalty of rates any longer than is necessary. The department receives far more letters from those who complain about their water rates being linked to the rating system than from those who realise that it is a much fairer system, depending on the tariff, to pay for the water they consume.
I think that there is one point that has not yet been covered, which is that to offer alternative systems to those who are on meters would be very costly. Further, if we offer an alternative system to those on meters, surely we should offer the alternative of meters to those who are on a flat rate charge or other system. That would lead to additional costs. The costs would undoubtedly have to be taken up by the customer. That additional cost and the cost of the bureaucracy involved is a figure that I cannot quantify. It would be extremely difficult to do so. However, I do not think that the Committee should be under any illusions; the costs would arise. As I understand it, the costs of meters are coming down. However, the longer the trials continue and the greater the number of people who transfer to metering, so the technology will improve and so the cost will come down. Metering is not the complete answer for everybody. Surely it is right that we leave it up to the water authorities to decide this matter.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: We have had an extended debate. I thank all those who have taken part in it, and particularly of course those participants who supported the views expressed in both the amendments I moved. I hope that the Minister will not be surprised but nevertheless disappointed if I say that both his interventions seemed to me to be thoroughly unconvincing. The fact of the matter is
44
that whether or not giving people a choice is practical, they have such a choice now. One can opt, if one wishes as a domestic consumer, to have one's supply, metered. The water authorities very kindly and very helpfully will tell one in what circumstances it is wise for one to pay the cost of installing a meter and to switch to that basis of charging.
When so many claims are being made as regards the advantages of the Bill now before the Committee, we cannot see why it is wrong to take away a choice, and in particular to take it away in circumstances in which it may disadvantage low income groups. The Minister expressed his concern about the impact that the metering system may have on low income groups. That in itself was an acknowledgement that there is a substantial possibility that, given the necessity for raising the quality of water, low income groups, particularly those with large families, will find themselves at a disadvantage. It is partly to minimise the scope for disadvantage that we have tabled our amendments this afternoon.
One cannot escape the conclusion, especially when the Minister said that we should give three cheers for getting rid of rates, that consumers are losing choice simply because the introduction of the community charge as a replacement for domestic rates eliminates the possibility of giving them a choice for the way in which they pay for their water. One should acknowledge that. We do not accept that because a community charge has been introduced, that fact alone justifies the withdrawal of choice in this important area.
The Minister referred to the fact that gas and electricity are metered and expressed the view that, because of that, water similarly should be metered. It is true that gas and electricity are metered and always have been. It is equally true that as regards the cost of metering and the reading of meters, even after privatisation British Gas plc has followed the practice of the former nationalised industry in reading meters only twice a year. On the other two quarterly occasions, gas consumption is estimated. I can only assume that that practice has been continued because there is a very sizeable charge involved in calling at every household in order to read the meter. That point was brought out in some detail by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He talked from the basis of his experience some 20 years ago at Thames Water.
Not all services are metered in this fashion. As regards postage, for example, there is a flat rate for a letter whether it goes to the London area or to the north of Scotland. Some of us feel that water is as important a public service as postage, and that therefore the charge should remain. The argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that metering will reduce consumption or make consumption a more carefully considered factor, and therefore will have a spin-off in environmental terms because less provision will need to be made for water supply, indicates quite clearly that in his view meters are likely to make the bill for the use of water dearer. His partial palliative, if one can so describe it, of having two kinds of flush in the lavatory, a full flush and a semi-flush, may be all right for those people who can look to the capital cost of doing that.

45
However, these things all cost money. Again we come back to the argument that the lower paid are likely to lose out in this regard.
The Minister also said that one of the advantages of metering was that it was possible to change the tariffs for water. He mentioned changes of tariffs in periods of drought. In the light of that reply from a Minister of the Crown, I ask myself how much notice the water plcs will give of intended changes of tariff. Will they anticipate drought? If they are not to give adequate notice of changes of tariff, how will the consumer adjust to such changes? If the notice which the water plcs are to give is so far extended that factors such as the weather and the availability of supplies do not come into it, what advantages are there in changes of tariff? To what extent will the consent of the Director General of Water Services be required for changes of tariff of that kind?
The Earl of Caithness: I fear that I did not make myself clear. I was trying to give the Committee a general idea of the possible nature of a system of tariffs. A low tariff could be designed for the essential use of water. Then I gave the example of an intermediary tariff and a high tariff. The high tariff would catch those who used an excessive amount of water. I merely used the example of drought to illustrate a situation where someone was using a larger than normal supply of water because he was continuing to water his garden in drought circumstances. I did not refer to a drought per se. I merely used a period of drought as an example.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Earl for that explanation. I grasp something of what he is trying to tell us. However, if the inference is that one can have a similar system for water to the white meter for electricity, we are drawing analogies which cannot be justified in practical terms. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, in referring to the Isle of Wight accepted that it was early days to be drawing conclusions from the experiments there. I do not wish to place too much emphasis on experiments anywhere because I think it is early days to assume that the experiments, some of which are unofficial, can point conclusively to one benefit or another in this area.
However, the noble Lord mentioned some of the problems of metering, such as in the case of buildings in multi-occupancy where there is one meter and the total meter reading has to be apportioned between the tenants of the building. On the other hand, if every tenant had an individual meter the problems of capital cost and revenue cost in reading and billing would be correspondingly greater.
I believe that the Minister has not looked sympathetically at the problems which will arise, in particular for lower income groups. I believe that we on this side of the House have a duty to make our concern about that aspect of this serious problem fully known. For that reason, I propose to divide the Committee on this question.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 345ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kearton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Mulley, L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Falkender, B.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cross, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Allerton, L.

Daventry, V.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Balfour, E.

Donegall, M.

Beloff, L.

Dundee, E.

Belstead, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blyth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bolton, L.

Foley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnock, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carver, L.

Havers, L.

Cawley, L.

Henley, L.

Clinton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hives, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hood, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cox, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Craigavon, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Killearn, L.

Croft, L.

Long, V.

47

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Renwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Romney, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Rugby, L.

Manton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Margadale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Marley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Seebohm, L.

Merrivale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mersey, V.

Shannon, E.

Middleton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Slim, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Somers, L.

Norfolk, D.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Norrie, L.

Strange, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathspey, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pender, L.

Trafford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Porritt, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pym, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Quinton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Radnor, E.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Reigate, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 345ZB:
Page 85, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) Any scheme for charges in respect of domestic consumers shall be made in accordance with section 77(3)(dd) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 345ZB on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 349ZA. I understand that a further amendment is grouped with these two amendments which will be spoken to by the noble Lord in whose name the amendment stands.
The purpose of the amendments is to make provision for people who wish to pay water bills by instalments so to do. We have received representations from a number of very responsible bodies, notably the National Association of Citizen's Advice Bureaux, advising us that there is substantial concern on the part of a large number of people who in the past have had the opportunity to pay their water rates as part and parcel of their rents on a weekly or fortnightly basis but who will now have to pay directly themselves. As a consequence, they are asking for advice as to how that should be provided for.
There is a consequential problem that, even where provision is made for such payments, the cost of so doing, particularly for people who do not have bank accounts and the like, is an additional charge. For example, I understand that customers have to pay 25p per Giro payment if they wish to pay by that method. There is a list of CABs up and down the country which have had experience of that problem and therefore believe that a statutory right to pay by
48
instalments should be written into the Bill rather than left to a code of practice.
There is some indication that the present position differs from regional water authority to regional water authority. Some encourage customers to pay in that fashion by monthly payment by direct debit or whatever. Others are more muted about the arrangement. Presumably, if those disparities exist now, they are likely to be carried over into the new regime when the Bill becomes law. In consequence, we believe that there should be a specific provision for that. For example, so far as concerns payments, the draft code of practice on disconnections envisages that facilities will be offered at the discretion of the water supply plcs only to certain groups specified in the code and only in the context of those who are already "in trouble", as the draft code puts it, in paying their bills.
Given that we have already agreed in the discussion on the previous amendment that the water bill for most consumers is likely to increase quite substantially, we believe that a system for payment either fortnightly or monthly is highly desirable. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 345ZB and 349ZA is to write something positive into the Bill in that regard. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 345C which stands in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Addington and is grouped with the amendment that has just been moved. This amendment is similar in its purpose, although it is perhaps more specifically and narrowly focused. I am glad that it does not say anything at all about metering and meter charges, which are a complex matter. The arguments are bedevilled by the fact that the cost of water charges at the moment is distorted by their linkage with rates so that the only people who benefit from having meters are rich people who live in highly rated properties. That is a separate matter. The amendment deals purely with the way in which water rates or charges are paid.
The present practice of monthly direct billing causes great difficulty to some low paid people or people with low incomes. This amendment seeks to make it possible for people to pay their water charges by weekly payments. I accept that if everyone did that it might be very onerous and even costly to the water plcs and to others, but I very much doubt whether many people would choose to do that. Most people will want to pay over longer periods, as they now do. But there is no doubt that two groups of people in particular—pensioners and the disabled—would greatly prefer to pay weekly, which is of course the same basis on which their income is paid to them. To allow them to do so would be a great convenience. It would not distort matters in other ways and it would be very helpful.
Proposals have been made to the existing water authorities in that regard. I understand that a proposal was recently put to Welsh Water to discover whether it was willing to make an arrangement to allow certain people to pay weekly and it refused. I am not entirely sure what the practice is among the

49
other water authorities at the moment. Nevertheless, I believe—and there is substantial evidence to this effect—that the ability to pay water charges weekly, whatever they may be and however they are computed—whether on a block system or by meter—will be of immense benefit to the low paid and particularly to pensioners and the disabled whose incomes are paid weekly and who are used to paying their outgoings weekly.
Lord Hesketh: As noble Lords have pointed out, this group of amendments concerns payments by instalments. Amendment No. 349ZA would provide for optional arrangements for payments of metered supplies by instalments under regulations made under subsection (2) of Clause 77. Amendment No. 345ZB would extend that provision to cover any scheme for charges in respect of domestic customers made under Clause 74. Amendment No. 345C would require water and sewerage undertakers to make provisions to enable payments of charges to be made on a weekly basis.
I quite agree that it is important for undertakers to provide arrangements through which all their domestic customers can pay their water and sewerage charges by instalments, and I am aware that practice varies within the industry. Under condition F of the licence, each appointed company will be required to include details of the arrangements for payment of bills by domestic customers in its general code of practice, including details of payments by instalments and budget plans. Since that code now has to be approved by the director general, he will be in a position to promote best practice in instalment arrangements and indeed encourage its development if appropriate.
Most importantly of all, following the announcement last Thursday during the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, that in virtually all cases the undertaker will have to go through the county courts for recovery of arrears of debt, there will be a very real incentive to introduce instalment and budget plans to ensure that customers do not fall into arrears of debt. That provision will be written not only into the disconnection code, but also into condition G of the licence.
We believe that we have now provided for every encouragement to ensure that arrangements for all domestic customers are introduced whereby they can pay their charges in instalments or through budget plans. We believe that to go further than that would be unnecessary and would amount to over-regulation. For that reason, I urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for setting out the position so far as concerns payment by instalments at the present time. This question is one of considerable importance not least, as I have already said in moving the amendment, by reason of the size of water bills in the future, but also for an additional reason; namely, that unless there is a system for easy payments—by "easy payments" I mean not only payments which are easily made but payments made without cost to the customer—there could be an increase in problems
50
regarding non-payment of bills. Although they are now covered by the code of practice and the amendments thereto which the noble Lord announced the other day, they are still likely, even though county court procedures are involved, to be invoked from time to time. That seems to us to be an additional reason for giving further thought to the matter.
The noble Lord said that, given that conditions F and G of the licences will be structured in such a way and subject to approval by the Director General of Water Services, those provisions are almost certain to be available. We should sooner see that assurance written into legislation. Another important point is that, unlike gas and electricity authorities, water boards are not particularly conspicuous on the ground; that is to say, they do not have showrooms and offices in most towns to which customers can go and pay bills. So any arrangement that is made for payment by instalments will need to be carefully thought out and worked out. Given the freedom that the Bill currently gives undertakers, it is just possible that some of them may take the view that it is not worth doing. As we believe this matter to be of such importance and, as I said, in view of the representations that have been made to us, I feel that we should test the opinion of the Committee.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 345ZB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 123.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milverton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ennals, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Falkender, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

51

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Allerton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Arran, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Atholl, D.

Margadale, L.

Balfour, E.

Marley, L.

Beloff, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Belstead, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bessborough, E.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Bolton, L.

Middleton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norfolk, D.

Butterworth, L.

Norrie, L.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Carver, L.

Orkney, E.

Cawley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clinton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Pender, L.

Colwyn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pym, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Quinton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Radnor, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Croft, L.

Reigate, L.

Cross, V.

Renwick, L.

Daventry, V.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saint Albans, D.

Denman, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dilhorne, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Donegall, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Slim, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Somers, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strange, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathspey, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Havers, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hives, L.

Trafford, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Windlesham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 345ZC:
Page 85, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) Any charges under subsection (1) above shall be fixed in accordance with any formula determined by the Director and for the time being applicable to charges of that description, and before approving any charges scheme, he shall consult the relevant customer services committee.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 345A.
52
We have referred to this matter already in Committee when considering the model appointment for the water and sewerage undertakers. We have already expressed the view, which I reiterate, that the arrangements proposed for the setting of the initial charges are totally unsatisfactory in two specific ways. First, they involve a misunderstanding on the part of the Government of the true or proper nature of the role of the Director General of Water Services as opposed to the Secretary of State. Secondly, under the Bill the initial formula for charges is not a matter of record in the Bill but is left to the model appointment, which is not part of the Bill and therefore not debatable or decided by Parliament.
On the first issue, the Bill provides that the price of water as established under the Bill should be the basis of a contract between the Secretary of State and the undertaker. Nothing could be further from the way in which prices ought to be set. The Secretary of State quite rightly has a political responsibility to Parliament. However, the setting of the price of water ought not to be a political decision. It ought to be a decision by the director general who is himself responsible for maintaining a regulatory balance between the different participants in the water industry. He has a duty to maintain the industry and to ensure that it is viable; but he also has a duty to improve the quality of water and to ensure that the consumer interests are protected. Those three interests are necessary if a proper price of water is to be arrived at.
The Bill provides that after the initial price setting, subsequent adjustment shall be the responsibility of the director general. I can see no good reason why the initial price of water ought not to be subject to the same regime. If it is correct for revisions to be the responsibility of the director general, so then the initial price should be the responsibility of the director general. That is what our amendment provides.
Our second objection is that the arrangements for initial price setting do not appear in the Bill. We have to raise amendments that consider the detail of the model appointment to enable the arrangements to be discussed. That is unsatisfactory. Parliament would be lacking in its duty if it did not seek an opportunity to discuss the price of water when it is considering the Water Bill. After all, the consumers and electors are interested in the adequacy and quality of the water with which they are being supplied; but they are also deeply interested—as Members of the Committee and Members of Parliament on the Government Benches will know—in the price of water.
A Member of Parliament or a noble Lord who supports the Government, faced with questions about the price of water, might simply say, "I know nothing about it. It is not dealt with in the Bill. It is a matter between the Secretary of State and the undertakers in which Parliament has no say". I do not think that constituents or friends of noble Lords will take kindly to that reply. They will feel that Parliament is neglecting its responsibilities if it does not seek to secure that a proper pricing system is provided, and that it is operated by the director

53
general who is appointed under the Bill by Parliament to do a regulatory job, and appointed therefore to take account of the interests of consumers. That would be a correct and justifiable response to any criticism about the role of Parliament.
The present drafting of the Bill provides no such defence. I suggest to the Committee that in those two major respects the present arrangements for the initial setting of water charges are unsatisfactory. I beg to move.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support my noble friend and to introduce a slightly different note. Water companies will be handed over to private enterprise. I have a splendid example of one of the privately owned water companies whose charges were increased by 41 per cent. Not unnaturally a number of customers questioned that. The explanations are fascinating. It was asked whether the increase was to meet requirements of privatisation, a view that had been circulated. The water company denied it. Members of the Committee will note that I speak of a private water company. However, some of the charges in which it has had to indulge are very curious. It required substantial sums to meet expenses incurred in connection with an abortive takeover bid from the Cook Islands. I find it fascinating that islands on the other side of the world want to take over the water in west Kent. Further expenses were incurred in relation to the purchase of the company's shares by a French undertaking; and so one goes on. The increase was nothing to do with the improvement of the quality of the water or the treatment of sewage, but with bad business handling.
Those are the people to whom we shall hand over our water services. Not only is one concerned about how they will handle it, but about the way in which we shall be charged. If those are the explanations that are offered to customers, it is increasingly clear that it is no good having voluntary codes of practice, which may or may not be operated. Any matter connected either with the charging, or with the carrying out of the water undertakings, must be written on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is absolutely right to say that we have travelled over a certain amount of this ground before. I quite understand why he wishes to go over it again.
Amendment No. 345ZC would insert in Clause 74 a new subsection requiring charges fixed under the clause to comply with any formula determined by the director which applied to such charges, and require the director to consult the relevant customer service committee before approving any charges scheme.
Amendment No. 345A would amend Clause 74 so that in place of the power of water and sewerage undertakers to decide the basis on which they shall fix charges in their charges schemes, the director would determine the basis of the charges, and be required to consult the relevant customer service committee before approving the scheme.
54
Clause 74 provides general powers for the undertakers to charge customers for the services they receive. These charges may be fixed under agreements with individual customers or in charges schemes setting out the standard tariffs.
The principle which the Bill follows on charging matters is that powers to charge are set out on the face of the legislation. Regulation of those powers is made the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services under Clause 7 and Chapter I of Part II of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, takes great exception to the role of the Secretary of State in setting the initial Ks. We do not believe that it is just a contractual matter settled by the Secretary of State, and that that is the end of it. It is part of the discharge of his statutory functions under the Bill, guided by precisely the same duties under Clause 8 that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is commending for the director general. The Secretary of State has been responsible for the industry hitherto and it is right that he should be responsible for the transition to the newly regulated regime.
Condition B in that model, to which I have referred, provides for an overall limit on increases in charges at standard rates, the so-called RPI + K. formula. Condition C requires undertakers to have charges schemes setting out standard tariffs for their domestic water supply and sewerage services. The Bill provides for charges for non-domestic supplies (Clause 46(6)) and trade effluent consents (Schedule 8, paragraph 3(4)) to be subject to appeal to the director except in cases for which a charges scheme has been made, setting out the charge to be paid. Condition D requires that charges shall show no undue discrimination between different classes of customer.
Amendment No. 345ZC would take a quite different approach, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has indicated before that he has no fears about proposing his own regulatory regime. What the amendment provides is an unfettered power for the director to impose charging formulae on charges made under Clause 74. We believe in firm regulation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we think, believes in central control.
Amendment No. 345A goes further. It provides for every individual tariff to be controlled by the director. We do not believe in removing every last vestige of management freedom from the undertakers. It is altogether unreasonable for the director to settle the detailed basis on which individual tariffs are fixed.
Setting a limit on increases, requiring published standard tariffs, as we shall require in conditions of appointment, and banning unduly discriminatory tariffs, as we propose, is a sound basis for customer protection. Customers will be able to draw attention to any failure to observe those and any requirements, and the director will be able to enforce them under Clause 20.
It is for those reasons that I hope that Members of the Committee will resist the amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was an extremely disingenuous reply and, I suspect, deliberately so. The noble Lord seems to set up a contrast between regulation proposed by the Government and central control proposed by the Opposition. He seems to suggest that what we are proposing is in conflict with the present regime whereby the Secretary of State, he says, sets the prices for the water industry.
There are rather profound differences between the present regime where the water authorities are publicly owned and the regime proposed by the Bill where the water undertakings are privately owned with the prime obligation that they maximise the return on their assets as laid down in Clause 7. The conflict between the Secretary of State and the water undertakings is a new one introduced by the Bill and by the fact of privatisation. Neither the initial conflict nor the need for this complex regulatory system exists at present. It is only privatisation which forces us into this extraordinarily complex and difficult regulatory regime. Every commentator who has considered the water industry as a candidate for privatisation—including people such as Professor Littlechild, who is generally in favour of privatisation—has observed that the regulatory regime which will be necessary for water as the quintessential natural monopoly will have to be more detailed and more severe than for any other privatised industry.
All these conflicts, differences and objectives and all the resulting complexity of regulation are forced on the country by the privatisation proposal. They are not in the nature of the water industry as such. When the noble Lord says in response to these amendments that what we are proposing is central control as opposed to regulation, he is in effect setting up his own Aunt Sally in order to knock it down. There is no rationale behind the argument that he is putting to the Committee.
We shall certainly have to return to this matter at a later stage. We shall have to try to secure a greater say for Parliament in what the electors as well as water consumers require as a result of privatisation and what protection is to be afforded them. At the moment the Bill provides them with virtually no protection. Now is not the occasion to pursue the argument. With the assurance that this matter will be returned to at Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 345A not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 345AB:
Page 85, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Earl said: With leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 350A and 450A. Much of what I have to say is relevant to Amendment No. 355B in the names of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord Elliott of Morpeth and Lord Nugent of Guildford. Indeed, they may wish to discuss their amendment now; the Committee, I am sure, would find that acceptable.
During the consideration of the Bill in another place the Government undertook to consider evidence about the basis on which infrastructure needed to provide water services to new customers is funded. In reply to a question from my noble friend Lord Kimball I announced on 11th May that the Government have concluded that a right to charge at the time new connections are made to water mains and public sewers would provide a clearer, fairer and more certain basis for ensuring that infrastructure is provided. These amendments are intended to provide for such charges to be made. As I also announced, we intend to impose a ceiling on the level of charge that can be made, related to the investment costs of the companies.
The principal amendment is Amendment No. 350A which inserts a new clause after Clause 77 bringing together restrictions on the powers in the Bill to make charges. Thus subsections (3) and (4), concerning restrictions on requiring payments for vesting declarations under the Public Health Act 1936 and for highway drainage respectively, replace similar provisions in subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 74 which are therefore deleted by Amendment No. 345AB.
Subsection (1) of the new clause clears the deck for the new power by providing that no other enactments are to entitle water or sewerage undertakers to make initial charges for becoming the provider of domestic water supply or sewerage services to new customers. Subsection (2) then provides that the restriction in subsection (1) shall not prevent charges for connecting premises to water supplies or to public sewers for the first time.
Subsection (5) provides that charges under other powers to recover expenses in carrying out works are unaffected, as are the powers in Clause 74(3) to fix the amount of any charge not restricted by the new clause by reference to such matters as the undertaker considers appropriate. Thus, for example, charges may be made for the expenses incurred by a water undertaker in making the actual connection between a customer's supply pipe and water main.
The new clause also leaves unaffected the provisions in Clauses 40, 41, 70 and 71 for requisitioning new water mains and sewers. Our intention in placing a ceiling on the charges that may be made under the new power is to see that, through the charge, newly-connected customers for domestic water supplies or domestic sewerage services, as a group, meet the investment costs of the undertakers in providing additional capacity at treatment works, in reservoirs and trunk mains, and so on, incurred because of the additional demand from these new customers. Any items of investment covered by the requisitioning provisions will be excluded from the assessment of the costs to be recovered.
In the case of new development, it will be the developer who has to pay the charge at the time the connection is made to the main or sewer. The ceiling will be set, in a condition of appointment, as a maximum amount for connected premises, an amount per dwelling in the case of residential property such as a block of flats. In the case of existing

57
properties, an option to pay the charge over a period of years will be available. The level of the ceiling will be reviewed from time to time by the director. In both cases the charge should help to ensure restrictions on finance are no longer seen as a reason for delay in providing infrastructure to serve new customers. It will also be clear that existing customers are not providing a subsidy. Furthermore, the need for individual agreements to pay for infrastructure associated with the granting of planning permission will be unnecessary.
Amendment No. 450A amends Clause 187 to provide for the new clause to be brought into effect by a commencement order under Clause 187(4). Our intention is that the power to charge in respect of new connections should come into effect on 1st April 1990. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must immediately express my thanks and those of my friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Elliott of Morpeth that the Government have moved so swiftly and so decisively to accept the main point of the new clause which we tabled to provide for what used to be called a connection charge but which I believe is better called an infrastructure charge, because that describes more accurately what this is about. I can be exceedingly brief, much briefer than I should have been had I been moving my new clause.
I have felt for a number of years that the apparently arbitrary incidence of charges which can be made for the connection of new premises is most unfair. In many cases substantial capital expenditure is imposed on a water or sewerage undertaker by reason of new development. Much of the cost of that has to fall on existing consumers. Only in the last two or three months have I become aware of this, if I may make a personal point. At my house in Essex the charges by the local water company have increased very sharply. The reason given is that heavy costs are being incurred because of the need to extend supplies to the development around Stansted airport. Not only are the local inhabitants having to endure the additional noise overhead, they are also having to pay for all the additional expenditure under ground as well. That does not seem to be fair.
There have been provisions under the Section 52 agreements and in other parts of the planning legislation whereby local authorities have been able to insist on certain charges being paid. However, if the local authority chooses not to do so there is nothing which the water undertaker can do. It must connect and provide the facilities to connect the new development and then recoup the cost by increasing the charges to its existing consumers.
Although worded in a negative and somewhat upsidedown way, my noble friend's new clause meets that point completely and we welcome it. It will prove to be a much fairer way of covering the cost. To a modest extent it will also reduce the value of the factor K in the pricing formula that will be applied under the Bill. I warmly support the Government's amendment. When we reach the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend I shall not move it.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, one question. As I understand capitalism in operation, if you instal more outlets, the product eventually becomes cheaper because more people take it. Why does that not operate in the case of water? If more people are drawing off water and using the sewerage, surely it should become cheaper and not more expensive. The noble Lord appears to advance a strange argument; that because he personally had to pay the charge there is something most unfair about it. The whole system under which we shall operate is unfair; therefore it is curious to try to single out one example. I am interested to know why he does not argue his own case. As I understand it, Marks and Spencer's goods become cheaper as it makes larger quantities to sell to customers. Why does that not apply to water?
Baroness Nicol: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if the answer to my question is included in the amendment and I have not spotted it. Can the noble Earl say what will happen to a single rural consumer living in a cottage who wishes to be connected to the mains supply? Does the amendment mean that he must pay the entire cost of having water piped to him in the cottage?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I understand that exactly that problem arises under the present rather haphazard scheme. Some local authorities will oblige a developer to pay an infrastructure charge when the water authority first installs a new facility. Thereafter new developers will argue that the facility already exists and that they do not need to contribute. The cost will be put on to some other new developer only when a further extension is required.
The result is that the impact of costs between successive developers, which may be nappening in the growth of a new town or the expansion of an existing town, falls in a totally haphazard way on the successive developments and therefore on the purchasers of the buildings in those developments. This system will allow an area-wide connection charge. That perhaps meets the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It will not relate to the individual charge but there will be a charge over an entire locality which will stand for a number of years. That is as I understand the scheme proposed in the Government's amendment. In that case it means that it will not be arbitrary except in the sense that it will be a flat rate charge per dwelling for the connection of water and sewerage. In that respect it will be a much fairer and certain way of removing the uncertainty which has surrounded the entire subject over many years.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said about the new development. However, one would be more at ease if one knew the rate of charges about which we are talking. For example, I had a commercial building in which there was a burst pipe. We could not replace the pipe because it would have meant digging up the concrete foundations. Therefore I had to pay over £300 to the water authority in order to make a new

59
connection. At least I knew what the charge was; it was a fixed charge of £300 before it would open up the mains and I could obtain an outside contractor to put in a new supply. I am wondering which charge we are discussing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked a question. The clause talks about individual properties being connected for the first time, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was talking about developments. I have great sympathy because I believe that the developers should pay where there is a need to extend sewers and water supplies to new buildings.
It would be helpful to have an idea of the additional cost. I do not imagine that the Secretary of State can tell us because it has yet to be fixed by the Director General of Water Services or the Secretary of State—I am not entirely sure. It would be interesting to have an idea of the ranges of finance about which we are talking.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should not rise at all because clearly I am exposing my ignorance. I read the new clause in Amendment No. 350A as being a restriction on the power to make connection charges. It is described as such in the side heading. As a result of the Minister's speech I was not clear that the opposite was the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is describing it with pleasure as being a clause which permits the making of connection charges or, as he calls them, "infrastructure charges". I have tried hard to understand the basis of the new clause in Amendment No. 350A. I should like to test my understanding on the Minister to see whether I am right. Am I right in believing that under the clause it is not possible to make a connection charge where there has already been water or sewerage supply and that it is possible only where there is a completely new supply of water or a connection for drainage purposes? Therefore, developers of new property and new estates will be charged the full cost of connection and existing water consumers and users of sewerage facilities will not be charged for them. If that is the case, I believe it to be right. It is correct for developers to be charged and not existing consumers. However, I could not read that in the clause.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and also for his indication that he will not move his amendment, which tries to achieve the same as the Government's amendment. I am grateful to him for his support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised the question of the isolated rural cottage. Yes, there will be a connection charge when one is taking on a new supply because one is extending the existing system. I believe that that reply also meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The amendment is talking about either existing properties which have not been connected and wish
60
to be so under a requisition order or a new development. It is difficult—almost impossible—to imagine a situation where the connection to one isolated rural cottage will mean anything other than an extension of the existing system. However, one can well imagine the situation on which my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wish to concentrate. For instance, the large amount of development at Stansted may well necessitate not only an extension to the existing system but new facilities, new sewerage works and an increase in the water supply, involving additional capital costs. I believe that that covers the point and meets the concerns. That is why it is so difficult for me to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ross, what sort of figures we are talking about. With capital works of this kind, until one knows the size of the works and what is involved it is very difficult to give any sort of charge for the connection to be made.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am still rather puzzled as to what this really means. We hear about connection charges; then we hear about infrastructure charges. Exactly what is meant by that? How are the charges to be levied and assessed? I understand that when new development takes place in an area, it may well be that it is not just a question of connecting up to the existing mains: it may be that new sources of water have to be developed and new storage capacity and new treatment works provided. Is it the case that under those circumstances, if they have to be provided, the developer will be required to make a contribution through a connection charge, or whatever other means, to those works? Is that what this is all about? Perhaps the noble Earl can enlighten me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: While the Minister is considering that, I am still concerned by his response to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I quite understand that it is not possible to put a figure on this matter, but the question then arises as to whether there is any limit. That is a rather different question. Is there not a risk in this new clause that the water and sewerage undertakings might be in a position to hold to ransom those who wish to have supplies to individual properties or to estates?
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raises an important point to which I shall return in a moment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is absolutely right in what he says as regards the great majority of cases. When we are talking about a new development involving increased infrastructure costs, those will have to be paid. However, as I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, where somebody is not on an existing mains supply but is possibly on a private supply or is connected to a cesspit or a septic tank then there will be a connection fee. Therefore, we are talking about two matters. The great majority of what we are talking about will be new infrastructure costs.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there is a limit, as I said when I spoke on the amendment, as to how much can be charged. That

61
is specifically so that we do not have the ransom situation of which he spoke.
Baroness Phillips: Can I ask the Minister another question? Throughout London we are cursed—I hope to mention this in Wednesday's debate on traffic—with property developers. In practically every street in the centre of the city, buildings are being pulled down and larger and higher buildings built. Therefore, more electricity, water and gas are used because there will be more tenants. There is no new infrastructure apart from being new in the sense that it has replaced the old. Let us take Grand Buildings at Trafalgar Square. An enormous superstructure has been built. I should be interested to know whether new sewers are to be built. I doubt it. Is a different sort of water system to be installed? I doubt that. Is that regarded as something new for which a charge will have to be made?
The Earl of Caithness: Although the noble Baroness despises the development, it is a sign of the growing prosperity of the country. Surely, in some cases that is to be welcomed. As housing Minister, I am very pleased to see some houses demolished to give way to new houses better suited to the accommodation of people's needs.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps the Minister will give way. These are not houses but offices which are sold at a ridiculous price—something like £44 per square foot. I am not talking about houses and the Minister knows that. I am talking about blocks of offices which grow higher and higher, are occupied by more tenants and therefore use more water and require more sewerage.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness clarifies her remarks. But offices do provide opportunities and jobs which people want. Therefore, there are both sides to that argument. Of course, if there is an increase in the use of facilities, which will be the case in some instances, leading to a further capital cost, then that will be taken into account. The powers by which the non-domestic water supply and trade effluent services are provided, which is very much what the noble Baroness is talking about, are sufficiently flexible to ensure that new customers for those services pay their way. Like customers for domestic water services, that is, water for cooking, hygiene, and disposal of domestic sewage, new industrial and commercial connections will pay a charge.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I believe that my noble friend Lady Phillips has raised a most important point. It could very well be that a block of offices rises from five storeys to 15, 20 or 25 storeys, in which case considerably more water will be used. That will involve infrastructure costs, not necessarily at that site or even in the vicinity. It could happen at the Kennet Valley, for example, where additional pumping may have to be installed to pump even more of our sweet water out of the green sand and chalk of that beautiful valley into the River Thames, drying up all our rivers and otherwise hurting the environment and the wildlife, merely to supply those
62
15 or 25 storey office blocks. That is an infrastructure charge; it is also a charge on the environment. I believe that my noble friend asked the Minister whether those people will be made to pay the costs of the infrastructure and also the costs of restoring the environment.
The Earl of Caithness: It may very well improve the environment because it may lead to a new reservoir, which the noble Lord wants, on the flight path of a rare species of duck or geese which will winter there. However, the noble Lord has a valid point. I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness. Those people will have to pay the costs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 345B:
Page 85, line 38, at end insert—
("(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision supplementing the provisions of this Act, as appears to him appropriate, with respect to charges by undertakers and in particular to require water undertakers and sewerage undertakers to include with any demand for payment such information about the fixing of charges as may be specified in the regulations.").
The noble Lord said: The principle behind this amendment is simple and straightforward; namely, consumer information. The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to make regulations about water charges and the particulars of those charges and to make the information available to the customer when he receives his bill.
I do not believe that it is at all unreasonable that someone should know exactly what he is paying for. I cannot think of any other sphere of goods and services required—in this case, the good of the water itself, piping and sewerage—where one would not know exactly what one had purchased. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks very wide powers indeed. No limit is placed upon the regulatory content of the regulations that could be made. There is no distinction drawn between regulations applying when initial appointments are made and subsequent regulations amending the framework of charging for existing appointees. The amendment ignores the role of conditions of appointment which we debated during consideration of Part I of Chapter II of the Bill: regulations would in fact cut across the role of the director general in regulating charges.
Clause 7 requires the Secretary of State and the director general to use the powers in Chapter I of Part II in the manner best calculated to ensure that the functions of the undertakers are properly discharged and that customers' interests are protected. That is to be achieved through conditions of appointment which the director is to enforce and to keep under review, modifying them where necessary either by agreement or following a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Those parts of the Bill have already been debated and stand part of the Bill. This amendment takes us right back to the earlier debate about which model to follow for regulations. In effect, this is a proposal to make the Secretary of

63
State responsible for economic regulation, a proposal which we should again reject.
Conditions of appointment will provide a sound framework for regulation of the powers in Clause 74, allowing full protection of customers' interests. Such conditions can in particular provide for information which customers should receive. It is for those reasons that I ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Addington, decides what to do about the amendment perhaps I may intervene. The Minister has picked on what I take to be a defect in the wording of the amendment, which states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision & as appears to him appropriate, with respect to charges by undertakers".
It is that final phrase that the Minister is using to say that the amendment re-opens the whole question of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the undertakers on charging. In so far as the amendment seems to extend the role of the Secretary of State as opposed to that of the director general in regard to charging, I support the Government and not the amendment. However, in moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Addington, ignored that phrase and spoke about the requirement for water and sewerage undertakers to include with any demand for payment information about the fixing of charges. That seems to me an entirely reasonable point to which the noble Earl did not reply. Perhaps he will feel able to do so before the debate is concluded.
The Earl of Arran: If it will help the Committee further, I shall expand on the provision of information which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks.
The existing regulations (Statutory Instrument No. 1048 of 1988) made under Section 5 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 about information to be provided with bills to metered customers will be saved by virtue of paragraph 16(6) of Schedule 25 of the Bill. The information to be provided includes any code of practice adopted by the undertaker, conditions relating to the testing of the accuracy of meters and a statement about the method of proof and effect of meter reading, liability for charges after ceasing to occupy metered premises and offences of tampering with meters. The need for a specific provision in the Bill to provide information is no longer necessary because it will be a requirement under condition F of the instrument of appointment. This requirement provides for each company to prepare a code of practice containing details of tariffs, the payment of bills, procedure for handling complaints and various information about metering, including the statutory responsibilities of metered customers. I hope that information will assist the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no responsibility for this amendment. I shall have to
64
read carefully what the Minister said. On the face of it, his reference to last year's Bill refers only to metered customers, but if I discover that there is something in Schedule 25 to the Bill which refers, as I understand it, to transitional provisions and savings which gives the assurance that I seek, I shall be happy to agree to that. However, I should have preferred an assurance from the noble Earl that the Government are sympathetic to the idea not just for metered customers and on a transitional basis but for information about the basis on which charges are fixed to be disclosed to customers with their bills. Can he give that assurance?
Lord Ross of Newport: That is exactly what we are seeking in this amendment. I accept the earlier comment by the Government that we are going back to the Secretary of State and to regulations and I accept that that is not what we are after. We are looking to what happens when the local authorities send out rate demands. They pinpoint on that demand where the money has gone—how much to the county council, how much on education, how much spent by the borough or district council making the rate demand and so on. We are seeking assurances that when the water undertakers send out their bills similar information will be given to consumers so that they know exactly how the charge is made up.
The Earl of Arran: I do not think that I can add to what I have said; that is, that the need for a specific provision in the Bill to provide information is not necessary because there will be a requirement under condition F of the instrument of appointment.
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to tell the Minister that that does not touch on either of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or by my noble friend in relation to the way in which charges are made up. His reply goes back to the answer given by him earlier which does not deal with the fundamental issue we seek to raise on this amendment. Can he think again?
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I can encapsulate this matter and say that the code of practice must be approved by the director general.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Do the Government believe that it is a good thing for consumers to be told the basis on which their water and sewerage charges are fixed?
The Earl of Arran: Obviously as much information as possible for customers is a necessary state of affairs, but the point is that we feel that sufficient information is already contained under the instrument of appointment.
Baroness Blatch: Is it not true that the code of practice referred to by my noble friend the Minister will include information about tariffs and such other terms on which those services are provided? This includes information about payment of bills, about handling complaints, about testing and accuracy of meters, about emergency procedures and about the

65
functions of the service committees, and there will be a requirement to put all this information to the director, and in addition to the customers when charges are sent out.
It seems to me that the Bill contains a comprehensive set of information data for the customer which includes much of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is asking for.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not have the draft code of practice in front of me and I bow to the noble Baroness who has that document in front of her. I certainly agree with her that it contains the information to which she referred, but I did not understand that all these matters must be provided to customers with their bills. If that is the case, we shall not raise the matter again.
Lord Addington: Having listened to what has been said by the Minister I am not entirely happy with the situation. I still feel that there should be a right to have a full breakdown. However, as there is an error in the drafting of the amendment, I should like to read what has been said and reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Charges schemes]:
[Amendment No. 345C not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 86, line 28, leave out ("or localities").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 348. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that when setting charges the new plcs will not discriminate against rural consumers—or, indeed, consumers at the end of a long line—compared to others in the same water plc because it costs more to supply them.
In a preamble to this problem on my Amendment No. 85, my noble friend Lord Caithness drew my attention to model instrument condition (3). I believe that we both made a mistake and that it is in fact condition D(2). I fully accept that this condition is helpful; but, sadly, it is not as helpful as my noble friend tried to tell me that evening because of the reasons kindly given in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Howard. The Minister said:
"If there is a pattern of wide differences in the cost of providing services, we do not propose a ban on recognising those differences in the standard tariffs for different areas, but if there are greater increases in charges in one area, there will have to be smaller increases elsewhere to comply with the conditions of appointment. The differences must be justifiable. It will not be possible simply to pick off arbitrary groups of customers for unjustifiable price increases".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/89; cols. 1263–4.]
Perhaps I may point out that earlier in that debate in another place my honourable friend said that he would be very concerned if rural areas were discriminated against. But his statement that I have just read out makes it crystal clear that, despite
66
model clause condition D(2), it will be possible for water plcs to raise their charges to cover additional costs—for example, in the case of a long service pipeline to a village on a hill—so long as those increases are not arbitrary and are offset by lesser increases elsewhere. I require two assurances from my noble friend on the Front Bench. The first is that I have misinterpreted or misread my honourable friend's remarks in another place. The second is a commitment that the smaller, faraway places are vitally important to this country as a whole to maintain and not to price against. To be fair to my noble friend, perhaps I may say that on this occasion I feel quite strongly about this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in this amendment. Rural communities are already disadvantaged in many ways regarding urban dwellers. They have seen the collapse of the public transport system in many rural areas. They have seen house prices soaring as car-borne workers from the cities come to buy houses and put them beyond the price affordable by residents in rural communities. The Government are constantly arguing that water is no different from any other commodity. We have tried to prove otherwise, but the Government have refused to accept it.
A rural community dweller can post a first-class letter for 19p and no one considers that it should be otherwise even though the postman has to go a long way. He also pays roughly the same per unit of electricity (though that may change) and per therm for gas. There seems to be a very strong argument for saying that once the rural dweller has met the initial higher cost of providing water (which we are told he will have to do from now on) the charges he has to pay for that water should not be any greater than for those who live in an urban area. I am glad to support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Walston: I support both the amendments on the grounds that the noble Baroness has so ably put before the Committee. Throughout the British Isles the rural community as a whole is in a state of flux at the moment. There are enormous changes taking place in their main source of income, which is agriculture. There is also an enormous decrease in the number of people needed to produce food. As the noble Baroness has said, there is an enormous increase in the number of people coming into rural areas who are not necessarily turning villages into dormitories; but because their resources are greater, they are making it very difficult, if not impossible, for those people born in the villages to acquire houses there as they grow up, marry and wish to bring up a family. From time to time (perhaps not often enough) the problems concerning rural depopulation, the closure of village schools, and matters of that kind, are discussed by Members of the Committee.
It is imperative that we have in this country a real policy for rural renewal depending on which part of the country it is; namely, whether it is Wales, Scotland, the Peak District or in certain areas of East Anglia. There should be a policy to ensure that

67
these vital areas for the national life as a whole are given the opportunity to change according to changing economic circumstances. A new form of viable economic and social life should be created.
Water is only one example, but a very significant one. To make different and higher charges for those who happen to live in remote areas—particularly those areas which we all wish to see encouraged to maintain their populations and to expand the opportunities for worthwhile employment—will be to put increasingly adverse handicaps on those areas. I hope that is being done without realising it; but in doing so, we are doing a grave disservice to the general policy which I believe to be shared by the Government, by all sides of the Committee and throughout the whole country. The two amendments appear to be a vital part, but a relatively small part, of ensuring that the process that we all deplore does not accelerate in years to come.
Lord Middleton: I join with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have just spoken in expressing anxiety regarding Clause 75(3)(a). I agree that it would not be right for a water undertaker to use this clause to vary its charges by making, in the words of the Bill,
"different provision in relation to different circumstances or localities",
so that higher charges are imposed on rural consumers. When I referred to this matter during the Second Reading debate, I compared such action as being just as wrong as making persons in remote areas pay a higher charge for postage because the postman had further to travel. I recognise that that was not a very accurate comparison. I see force in the argument that consumers in rural areas, by excessively high differential pricing for water, might be driven back to traditional but less reliable sources. Some of the old private supplies are first-class but some are not. The increased use of them would carry with it the need to monitor and remedy faults at a multitude of sources with all the costs that will arise as quality standards are tightened. The water companies' supplies will have to be pure and reliable, and people in remote areas should be encouraged to use them and not be priced out of using them.
Lord Renton: I certainly believe that for domestic consumers there should be a flat rate in each area, and I do not see anything to stop it. As regards industrial and other users, I can see that if it is a very distant place from the main places to which water has to be supplied, the cost of taking it to that very distant place may be considerable. For a particular industry, factory or undertaking, the consumption of water could be quite considerable. Even so, as regards domestic consumers even though it may be a long distance away, there should be a flat rate.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he feels quite strongly about these amendments. I have never known him to move an amendment about which he did not feel strongly. Both the amendments would have quite an effect.
68
The major concern has been voiced about rural areas, but I think that it is wise to draw to the Committee's attention the full consequences of the amendments.
The effect of both amendments is essentially the same. Amendment No. 346 would remove the ability of an undertaker to make a charges scheme which would make different provision for different localities. Subsection (3)(a) echoes Section 3(2) of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. That Act provides that the companies,
"may make different charges for the same service, facility or right in different cases".
That was agreed by noble Lords.
Subsection (3)(a) simply makes explicit an existing implicit provision to differentiate charges by area, under which power some authorities already make different charges in different divisions of their regions to reflect different average rateable values. This power is used to even out the charges made to customers in similar properties throughout the authorities' areas. I take it that my noble friend would not wish that practice to cease.
Amendment No. 346 refers to subsection (4), which provides that charges schemes should not prevent an undertaker from entering into agreements with customers or potential customers to determine charges for services or for agreements concerning trade effluents. The amendment would require that such agreements should be at the same level for the same level of service throughout the undertaker's area.
Subsection (4) ensures that charges schemes do not interfere with the powers of undertakers to enter into agreements individually; for example, where they have special needs. The service provided will be tailored to suit each customer's needs and may in some circumstances require a capital contribution from the customer in order that a suitable service might be provided. It will be very hard to judge how the amendment could apply fairly in the case of a very large supply of water to an industrial customer, a point so well made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
The services provided by agreement by their very nature tend to be different and therefore the charges must be different to reflect those different circumstances, but they are not so different that the amendment would not impede agreement of sensible terms. In the case of large customers I see no reason why the charge should not reflect the specific cost of providing the service.
Those are some consequences of the amendment to which no noble Lord, apart from my noble friend Lord Renton, made reference. There was concern that the provisions of the Bill could lead to unfair increases in charges to rural customers. This is not the case. The answer lies partly within Clause 7 and partly in the model instrument of appointment. Condition B of the model instrument of appointment contains a charging formula which requires that increases in charges for a basket of services must not increase by more than an amount linked to the retail prices index. The basket comprises water supply and sewerage services and trade effluent services set at

69
standard rates. Condition D prohibits undue preference or undue discrimination between classes of customer.
This means that if there are variations in the cost of providing services in different areas, although we would not propose a ban on recognising those differences, because of the fixed size of the basket, if charges were increased in some areas there would have to be a relative decrease in other areas to comply with the conditions. Any differences that arose would have to be justifiable and it would not be permissible to discriminate against a particular group or groups of customers for unjustifiable increases.
I think that my noble friend's concern is met by that point because he is worried about an arbitrary decision against a rural area; a farmer in a rural area is particularly on his mind. It has to be justified and a differential cannot arise for any unjustifiable increase. Taken together, therefore, the general duties under Clause 7 and the conditions of appointment provide a clear and unambiguous protection of customers', including rural customers', interests.
Lord Renton: My noble friend has referred to Clause 7. I have looked back to it but I cannot see anything in the clause which specifically carries out the obligation to have what I can only describe as even dealing between different types of consumer in the same locality.
The Earl of Caithness: It is not Clause 7 on its own but a combination of Clause 7 and the model instrument of appointment. My noble friend is right. Clause 7, which we debated at length earlier in the Committee stage, deals with general duties with respect to water supply and sewerage services. One has then to look at the model instrument and at conditions B and D to tie the whole thing together.
Lord Wise: Perhaps I may make one point for clarification. I am still not absolutely sure whether as a consumer living in a cottage on top of a hill I could pay more for the water that I consume than a friend living in a town 10 miles away. I am not sure about that.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend might be paying more or might be paying less at the moment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: We have made progress because we have now had an absolutely categoric statement from the Minister that we might pay more or we might pay less and that we could be differentially charged against. This is very different from the story we had when the matter came from another place. We have achieved something. At least we know where we are. It is quite clear that the plcs will be able to charge more for rural, outlying places than for towns, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Wise. Consumers may well pay more because, as my noble friend Lord Middleton said, the cost is so high that a great many people will go onto private supplies and the matter will become even more difficult. That is why I bring up my next point. I
70
understand that the large consumer may have to pay different charges but I suspect that the plcs will prefer to make more money out of a large consumer of water than a small one.
My noble friend brought me back to this wretched model instrument over which we had such ado when we discussed Clause 7. It does not help me very much. The worst part of condition D(2) is the word "undue". It means anything you like to make it, as he honestly replied. I am surprised that my noble friend mentioned Clause 7 because it is the clause I dislike intensely. It gives the director a prime responsibility for ensuring a return on capital rather than for the interests of me, the consumer. I am not talking about the farmer. I am talking about a small village up on the hill. If my noble friend would like to take that out on Report I shall go away perfectly happy and not bother him at all for the rest of the time.
I know where we stand. I am grateful to the Minister for being so straightforward and for answering those questions. I shall come back to it at Report because I am not happy. I am grateful for the help of the Committee and I thank my noble friend for making it quite clear to me where I stand.
The Earl of Caithness: With respect, I think that my noble friend does not know where he stands. He is deliberately misinterpreting what I said. Condition D prohibits undue preference and undue discrimination among classes of customer. I repeat that the charge to the village on the top of the hill cannot be varied unjustifiably from what it is at the moment, because of the basket in model conditon B. That is his safeguard. It is the one thing that he dislikes but it is the one thing that safeguards him.
My noble friend now dislikes Clause 7. That would leave the people on top of the hill in an even worse situation. If we were to delete Clause 7, we should delete subsection (2)(a), the purpose of which is,
"to secure that the function of a water undertaker and of a sewerage undertaker are properly carried out".
I pity the poor people in my noble friend's village if we were to delete that clause.
7 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, can the Minister enlarge a little upon what he considers to be a "justifiable" expense in this case? I am not at all clear as to what he means. If one looks at the matter coldly, it would be justifiable to say that because the water has to be pumped a few miles without anyone taking anything off and paying for it, the undertakers are justified in charging very much more per gallon, per litre, or however the cost will be assessed. What is a "justifiable" increase, therefore?
The Earl of Caithness: That is linked in the basket to the Retail Prices Index. I believe that it would be a matter for discussion with the director general, who has a duty under Clause 7(3)(a) to try to avoid undue discrimination, which is the concern of the noble Baroness. However, let us not forget that the village on the hill might well be benefiting and have a lower charge at present than is the case in the urban situation.
Lord Tordoff: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I may draw the noble Earl's attention to a phrase which he used just now. He suggested that his noble friend had deliberately misunderstood something which he said. In my view that is not a very felicitous phrase to use in this House. I wonder whether he might reconsider the matter. I know that it was said with the best of intentions, but I think that it will perhaps not look too well on the record.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps it was not a very felicitous phrase to use; I withdraw it unhesitatingly, and apologise to my noble friend.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I very much regret the fact that my noble friend is withdrawing that phrase. I expect that kind of remark. I also expect that I am sometimes somewhat naughty in trying to put words into his mouth which he does not really want to have put there. In conclusion all I say to my noble friend is this. I suggest to him that, if he will take out Clause 7(2)(b) as opposed to Clause 7(1)(a), then I may be just a little happier. We cannot go futher on the matter at this stage but I hope that my noble friend and I shall be able to discuss the matter between now and Report stage. Perhaps we can introduce something better into the model clause, especially in regard to condition D(2). In the meantime, I thank Members of the Committee for their help and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: Members of the Committee may consider that this is an appropriate moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of 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.

Summer Time Order 1989
7.3 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 18th April [16th Report from the Joint Committee.].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th April.
This draft order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and which has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place, is uncontroversial, as its purpose is to extend for a further three years—that is, from 1990 to 1992 inclusive—the existing arrangements for the starting, and ending, of summer time.
It will mean that, as in previous years, summer time will start at one a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on the last Sunday in March and end at one a.m.
72
Greenwich Mean Time on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October. The dates in 1990, will be 25th March to 28th October. In 1991, they will be 31st March to 27th October. In 1992 they will be 29th March to 25th October.
All member states of the Community, regardless of what time zone they are in, begin summer time on the same day, but the United Kingdom and Ireland end summer time about a month after the rest of the Community. We hope to be in a position to publish a consultation document next month which will examine three options for future summer time arrangements which secured the most support in a preliminary round of consultation.
The options are: first, keeping the status quo; that is, GMT during the winter months and GMT plus one hour from the end of March to the end of October. The second option is "single/double summer time", which means GMT plus one hour during the winter months and GMT plus two hours from the end of March to the end of September. This would in effect put this country in the Central European Time zone.
The third option would be to harmonise the end date of summer time with our Community partners. This would mean that we should be an hour later by the clock than them throughout the whole year and we should lose summer time in October.
The continuation of the present arrangements for a further three years will enable the Government to complete their consultations and, in the light of the facts and opinions expressed, to consider whether there is a case for change.
I see that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret has put down an amendment to this order which would prevent it from coming into effect. I do not wish to pre-empt anything which my noble friend may wish to say, but I am sure that he will bear in mind that it is necessary to have the order so that the arrangements for summer time may continue, and that after the consultation has taken place it will be possible for the Government to make any changes within the lifetime of the order.
I know that my noble friend is anxious to make changes fairly speedily, but I am bound to tell him that if it were decided to change the summer time arrangements we should need to give diary manufacturers and others plenty of time before this came into effect. It is therefore unlikely to happen in any circumstances before 1992. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not be too enthusiastic in seeking to ensure that your Lordships do not pass the order.
I see that the speakers' list shows me as being the last speaker. But, as we shall be debating my noble friend's amendment and if your Lordships approve, I suggest that I speak after the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret will then have the right to make the final speech on his amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 18th April [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to proceed further with the debate on the Motion for an humble Address for a Summer Time Order which seeks to make arrangements for 1991 and 1992 in advance of the issue of the Home Office consultation document on the future of summer time".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment to this order standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think that it is necessary for me to explain that the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the three-year timescale, as provided for by the order, to a one-year extension. Although I understand that that may not be practical because, if the amendment is agreed to, the order as it stands will fall, I suggest that, if that were to happen, it would really not be very difficult, if the points were taken on board by my noble friend, for another order to be laid before your Lordships' House restricting the extension of our present arrangements for summer time to a further year. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The reasons behind the amendment are these. I beg your Lordships' indulgence while I explain why I and many of my colleagues have put this amendment forward. It is unfortunate that for various reasons my colleagues cannot be here this evening. That is why I have been asked to speak. We had a meeting with my noble friend Lord Ferrers as long ago as last April. We made it perfectly plain on that occasion that there were many bodies and organisations throughout the country which felt that a change from our existing arrangements to extended summer time or the adoption of Central European Time was desirable.
Those representations were made by bodies like the CBI, the Royal Development Commission, the British Tourist Authority, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Policy Studies Institute and one or two others. My noble friend was good enough to accept that there was a case to be considered for an extension at least of summer time. Having said that, there is no doubt that there are many people and organisations who feel exactly the opposite. However, it appears that it is necessary for these matters to be highlighted, investigated and debated.
We were assured last April that a survey would be conducted by the Home Office, followed by a consultative document on which the Government could base their proposals.
It is not my purpose to go off at a tangent and talk about the merits or demerits of the extension of summer time or the changes thereof; that is not the subject before us today.
Concerning the preliminary survey in our debate on 5th May last year my noble friend said (Official Report: 5th May 1988, col. 739):
"We are consulting widely on them and we shall decide on what steps to advise Parliament to take when we have analysed the results."
Towards the end of the debate my noble friend rightly said (at col. 755 of Hansard)
"However, I think that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter after we have completed our consultation, accepted
74
views and put foward our proposals. I think that would be the best time for debate."
That is absolutely right. We felt that that was the right approach and allowed a lot of time for such a consultative document to be forthcoming. Unfortunately, here we are, 12 months later, and no consultative document has arrived. I understand from my noble friend that such a document will be available for consideration in a month's time. If that is the case, I question whether we are not trying to put the cart before the horse. Why agree to extend existing arrangements for summer time for three years before discussing a consultative document? Why do we not have a consultative document and then decide whether or not we should extend it for three years or change it?
Last year the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly pointed out that in 1985 we passed a similar order, which had the same arrangements for summer time, for a period of three years. But last year, as the noble Lord pointed out, we were being asked for a period of one year to be imposed under the order, presumably to enable this survey and the consultative document to be produced. If last year one year was deemed to be correct, which is fair enough, I cannot understand why we cannot have an order asking for one further year this time round. The sad fact of life is that when any government bask in the sun, knowing that they have got into a position whereby they need not do anything, then it tends to follow that nothing gets done. Other things crop up and we all get too busy. I say that not by way of criticism, but it is a fact of life.
We feel that this is a very, very important matter. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, were here he would vouch for the fact that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have said that up to 500 lives a year are thought to be saved by the adoption of central European time. If that is so, that is a very large number of lives that can be saved. The Government acted, in some people's views rightly and others not, to such disasters as Hungerford. They brought in urgent legislation to try to ensure that such a monstrosity could not happen again. If 500 lives a year could be saved, I question why we are not addressing ourselves to this matter with the same degree of urgency
I hope that my noble friend will take these points on board so that we can be assured that there will be no question of a feet dragging effect: that we shall have a consultative document next month and that there will be an opportunity for this matter to be ventilated. Whether it is agreed or disagreed is neither here nor there. Parliament will decide. However, the issue must be considered and seen to be considered. If a debate shows that there is a desire for change, in whatever direction, then legislation will be forthcoming at the earliest opportunity and not left to the 11th hour and to the termination of the proposed three-year extension which we are being asked to consider today. If such assurances are not forthcoming one has to consider whether or not one should ask the House to decide upon the matter. This is a very important issue and I do not think that it is asking too much of my noble friend and his colleagues. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to proceed further with the debate on the motion for an humble Address for a Summer Time Order which seeks to make arrangements for 1991 and 1992 in advance of the issue of the Home Office consultation document on the future of summer time"—(Viscount Mountgarret.).
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Viscount who has just moved his amendment. I should like to remind the House of two things. First, it appears that the Summer Time Order is a favourite matter, in spite of its national interest, for business at dinner time. It was at dinner time last year that we discussed this order. I commenced the remarks that I dared make to your Lordships by saying this (at col. 740):
"My Lords, the length of the list of speakers not only indicates the great national interest in the question of summer time, but also encourages the House during dinner hour business to have a self-denying ordinance in regard to the length of speeches. I intend to impose that ordinance upon myself."
I repeat that submission to the ordinance. But this is a matter of gravity and national interest: interest in Scotland, interest among people who, as the noble Viscount said, are very concerned with the issue of the prevention of accidents; farmers; and interest among people who like enjoying their light hours when they return from business in order to be with their families.
The second point that I should like to remind the House about is this. As the noble Viscount said in very moderate language, in 1988 we passed the order for one year. I thought that we did that because of the very words that the Minister of State, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned at that time. He said, as the noble Viscount quoted, that the Government were concerned with the various opinions that were being expressed regarding the Summer Time Order. He said at col. 739 of Hansard:
"The Government have commissioned a large-scale survey on summer time, as I informed your Lordships on 12th April in a Written Answer to my friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The survey asks for views from a wide range of organisations on three options which were more favoured in a preliminary survey which was conducted last year."
What is the explanation for the lakadaisical attitude? If that is the correct way of describing it, as I think it is. What is the explanation for an undertaking to this House, as I construe those words to be, that a survey was being conducted; that the reason for the order being for only one year was so that one could, by implication, have the results of the survey before we made our decision in 1989, which year we have now reached? I ask the Minister what has happened to the survey? When did it start? Why is it not yet finished? And if it is finished now, as the noble Viscount said, why have we not had the benefit of knowing the results before we make a decision this time not for one year but for three years?
The last point that I should like to make is the following. As we do not have a termination date for the Summer Time Order which coincides with that of our Continental partners, why are we now trying
76
to provide for three years, including the magic year of 1992, when we are supposed to be one market? I can well understand making it an order that covers the years 1989 and 1990. I can even see the sense, subject to the point that I made before about the survey, of getting on to 1991, but here we have provision for 1992. Is not this an absurdity, and is there not a great duty upon the Minister to understand what has happened and to give us an explanation of what appears on the face of it to be a nonsense?
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the very pertinent questions that have been put by the last two speakers.
I have never understood why the Summer Time Orders are always eccentric in the sense that mid-winter does not fall in the middle of the period of Greenwich Mean Time. If we were considering not only daylight saving but also heat conservation, I could understand it, because it may well be that the earth's heat from the sun continues until the end of October, when Greenwich Mean Time begins, and that winter's cold persists until the end of March. However, I understand that that is quite irrelevant to such orders. The Minister said nothing in his speech about heat conservation. Therefore, I believe that we are dealing entirely with daylight saving. Surely it must be the case that the hours of daylight are equal on equal sides of mid-winter. Therefore, why do we have to have an eccentric order introducing Greenwich Mean Time on unequal sides of mid-winter.
The only other point I wish to make is that this surely must be a subject upon which we need co-ordination and guidance from the Commission in Brussels. I would think that even the Prime Minister would accept that this is a suitable subject for the Commission to consider and on which to try to help.
The Minister pointed out in his speech that the countries of Europe mostly end summer time on the same date, but when it comes to reintroducing summer time the countries are a month apart. That is a frightful problem. It is one thing to decide, when winter comes, what your time differences are, but if for a month in the early spring there are various changes and then a month later the times come together again, that is a dreadful muddle and mess. With the help of the Commission I should think that we might manage to achieve some sort of harmonisation on that.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the pertinent questions which have been asked.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Constantino of Stanmore: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment very strongly. There has been a great deal of discussion with leaders of industry and with those who operate airlines, all of whom believe that we should first make the change to bring us into line with our European friends, and, secondly, make a two-hour difference ahead of time. It is important that we consider the matter very carefully. It has been discussed both with the Home Office and with the Department of Employment, which believes that there is a great deal to be done

77
to bring us into line and to ensure the growth of both employment and the entertainment industry.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Government and to congratulate them on their common-sense in this matter. I certainly hope that we shall not go on to Central European time, because we are not geographically part of Central Europe, and therefore to do so would be nonsensical, but if there are to be any changes there must be plenty of consultation and preparation beforehand. I think that that would take at least three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made great play of 1992 and the fact of the single market. Perhaps I might remind him that the United States, Canada and Australia are also single markets and have between three to five time zones apiece, none of which seems to impede their highly efficient economic performance.
Having said that, I should like to put a question to the noble Earl. From the explanatory note at the end of the order, I notice that its provisions do not apply either to Jersey or to the Isle of Man, which we are told have their own legislation on the subject. Could he say whether those territories are free to come to different summer-time arrangements from the rest of the United Kingdom should they so choose?
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies perhaps I may ask him one question. If the order is approved today and there is a debate in the comparatively near future which shows that without any doubt the House is in favour of making changes, are we tied to 1992 or could we make the changes before then if they are considered important?
7.28 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for agreeing that the Government are doing the right thing. I thought that we were not going to find many friends around the Chamber. I am grateful to him for that. He asked why Jersey and the Isle of Man were left out and whether they could make their own arrangements if they wanted to do so. They could if they wished, but the likelihood is that they probably would not so wish.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, I shall come to the details later on, but if we extend the Summer Time Order in the way that we propose, it will extend for three years but at any time during that three-year period we can alter it if that is the wish of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked some pertinent and perfectly correct questions. My noble friend referred to the fact that he came to see me last April and that I had agreed that there was a case for change. He was generous enough to say that I also agreed that there were many people who did not want change, and that this is a vexed subject on which people hold very strong views. That is the reason why we decided that the right thing to do was to carry out a consultation process. My noble friend said that we
78
ought to have a debate after we had concluded the consultations, and he asked why we are having the debate before. The answer is that the consultations have not been concluded. Therefore it is necessary for us to continue with summer time.
Perhaps I could give your Lordships an idea of what has happened. We carried out the consultations in two parts, the first being interdepartmental consultation. That was put forward in two stages. The first was one of five options, the second of three options. About 600 organisations have been consulted and information has had to be collated and interpreted. So I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would not really accuse us in retrospect of lackadaisical action. If we involve those numbers of people, it takes time.
Having gathered those views, we intend to issue a consultation document on which people may give their views. When that is done we shall be in a better position to decide what action should be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked a somewhat esoteric question about the date on which summer time started and the date on which it finished. He said that this was not equidistant between the middle of the year and that the land warms up, becomes colder and does other curious things which affect summer time. In Continental Europe it is true that summer time is three months before and three months after the longest day, 21st June. In this country summer time has gone on for another month. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested that we should start summer time earlier, at the beginning of March, in order to balance October. The reply I am bound to give is that if we did that it would remove the benefits of the harmonised starting date.
Further, the weather in March and October is not the same. Although the amount of daylight is less in October than in March, it is nevertheless considerably warmer in October because the earth and the sea—to continue the noble Lord, Lord Airedale's description—have stored up the summer heat. It is clear from consultations we have had that the hour of evening daylight in October under summer time is widely appreciated. There is no support for an extra hour's evening daylight in March, except as part of the option of single and double summer time.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Mountgarret asked why we had brought forward an order now covering three years when last year there was an order which only covered one year. Perhaps I could tell your Lordships that traditionally the orders have covered three-year periods. That has been in order to conform with the European Community directives. The fourth Council directive which covered 1989—that is what we had last year—was an interim measure suggested by the Commission in order to enable the Government to consider the arrangements for summer time and to inform the Community of our position from 1990 onwards.
The negotiations on the fifth directive cover the years 1990, 1991 and that mysterious year which worries the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so much, 1992. I can assure him that there is nothing to worry

79
about; it is merely the addition of three years to 1989 which brings us to 1992. During those negotiations the Commission acknowledged that a review of summer time in the United Kingdom was planned and stated that,
"in the light of these developments and in order to give time to the United Kingdom and Ireland to discuss such a sensitive issue concerning every individual and on which their national Parliament attach a particular importance, [the Commission] proposes to continue the present system with a provision that the United Kingdom and Ireland may finish the summer time period in September at any of the years concerned".
Therefore, it seemed to us that there was little point in arguing for a directive to cover only one year when the provision for change during the three-year period was already built into the directive. That is the reason why we have a three-year order now. I can only repeat, which I do quite happily, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that should it be decided that we wish to end this earlier we can do so at any September during the three-year period.
However I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that even if Parliament decided at the earliest possible time after the closing of the consultative exercise to change the future summer time arrangements, we have to give diary manufacturers and others plenty of lead time before the beginning of the new time-scale. It is therefore unlikely in most circumstances to happen before 1992. However, within the terms of the directive we can make the change at any time during the lifetime of the order.
I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will realise that the Government are concerned not only to act expeditiously but to make sure that so far as possible we obtain the result which will achieve the greatest degree of harmony possible. Even that is quite a large hope because it is a very controversial subject. When we believe that we are all of one view, we find that others have totally opposed views. We merely wish to try and get it right.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may congratulate him on his artistry in defending his department having taken over a year working on the survey. I merely remind him that the department may learn a little lesson from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who gives the whole nation about three months in which to make observations on very fundamental Green Papers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I am not breaking the rules of order, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gives the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stick precisely for that very reason. We are trying to make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, plus others, have no cause to make that complaint to us.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask him whether he is in a position to give the two assurances I sought. I asked that after the consultation document is produced within the next month, as intended, time should be provided for debate. If the debate were to show an overwhelming requirement to make a
80
change, the legislation should be enacted or instituted at the earliest opportunity. Is my noble friend in a position to give those assurances?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think, with the greatest respect, that my noble friend fires just about as fast a ball as he can fire at anyone. Of course I am not prepared to say exactly what will happen because I do not know what the results of the consultation will be. Certainly Parliament will have plenty of time to discuss an alteration, should an alteration be proposed.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, I am sorry that I did fire such a fast ball at him. We are concerned because these proposals have taken quite a degree of time. Of course matters take time and have to be thought through very carefully. We understand that. Nonetheless I am sure that the point has got through that it is an important matter. It ought not to be allowed, proverbially, to be pigeon holed. I am grateful to my noble friend for the charming and courteous manner with which he dealt with the amendment, especially in view of the short notice that I gave, for which I wish to apologise to the House. It was due to circumstances slightly beyond my control that notice of the amendment was so short. I hope that I may be able to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, listening to the end of that short debate I cannot forbear misquoting Fitzgerald and saying to your Lordships:
"Awake! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has cast the Ball that puts the Stars to Flight".
Having said that, I beg to move that the Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 be approved. The main purpose of this instrument is to revoke two provisions in the Social Security (Benefit) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1974 which we have been advised are contrary to the European Community directive 79/7 on the equal treatment of men and women. These are Regulation 2 and Regulation 8.
At present the measures contained in Regulation 2 of these regulations provide credits in certain cases to women whose marriages have ended, either by widowhood or divorce, to assist them to obtain short-term national insurance benefits. I should emphasise that these credits are awarded only for the purposes of a particular claim and not to affect a woman's pension position. These particular claims

81
are sickness benefit, maternity allowance and unemployment benefit.
It is because these credits are available only to women and not to men who may be in precisely the same situation that they are discriminatory. This change will affect only a small number of women and the number is decreasing as more married women are working and can claim benefit on the basis of their own contributions record. We are also revoking Regulation 3(10), which refers again to Regulation 2.
Those women who are already benefiting from Regulation 2 will continue to be able to benefit from it under the traditional provisions contained in this instrument. These provide the same degree of cover as the transitional arrangements which apply to the recent change in contribution conditions. This means that no continuing claim will experience a change in benefit before 1st October 1989.
Regulation 8, which is also to be revoked, requires adjudication officers to take account of the special circumstances which can apply to married women when considering whether a woman has left a job voluntarily. This does not apply to men and is therefore discriminatory. Additionally, this regulation is now redundant because the more recent adjudication regulations require that all relevant factors are considered in every case.
The other provisions in these regulations are good housekeeping measures; for example, the basis for calculating earnings factors, on which entitlement to contributory benefits is based, was changed from April 1988: earnings factors are now derived from earnings on which contributions have been paid rather than on the contributions themselves. The regulations before the House amend the Married Women and Widows Special Provisions Regulations to reflect the current practice. Calculations for years before April 1988 will continue to be made on the old basis.
Another change concerns the treatment of posted benefit claims and notices of retirement. These are now treated as being made, or given, on the date on which they arrive in one of the Department's local offices rather than the date on which they were posted. These regulations amend the Widow's Benefit and Retirement Pensions Regulations to bring the treatment of posted notices of de-retirement into line. To complete this package of good housekeeping measures, the regulations also make a number of purely technical changes such as the repeal of regulations that are now redundant.
I am sure that we will all appreciate the need for these changes, despite the fact that they are only minor ones. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister who has tried to make clearer the unclarifiable regulations that are before the House this evening. I wish to ask him why these
82
changes have been made at all. Is this just a mandate from Brussels? I am sure that the Prime Minister would not approve of that. It is very difficult to understand why the regulations have been brought before the House in this form.
I would be the first to assure the Minister that we want equality of treatment between men and women. Certain parts of the regulations, particularly Regulation 2, would not be opposed by us if only we could obtain more information about the effects. I have before me the record of the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments which met on Wednesday, 17th May. It was stated in that committee that this change would affect only a small number of women. How small is "small"? If the Government are changing the regulations so that a small number of women are disadvantaged, I think the women who are affected may wish to know whether they constitute a small number. It seems to me totally irresponsible to bring in a change which will affect an unknown number of women.
There is also the matter of the treatment of posted benefit claims and notices of retirement. If those documents arrive in one of the department's local offices on a certain date, we should know how that will affect the commencing date of benefits. I also understand from previous debates that the Minister feels that one reason for the change is the need for equality of European regulations on discrimination. As I have already said, we are concerned that discrimination between men and women should be abolished. But surely the answer is not to level down the benefits but to level them up. That does not seem to me to be the case as regards these regulations. Every year there will be consequential regulations. The original regulations state that: the fact that a woman may obtain employment for the first time where a marriage has been terminated by death or dissolution will be taken into consideration. We want to be assured that if a man finds himself in the same circumstances, his benefits will not be reduced down to the level of the woman's existing benefits but that her benefits will be uprated.
I must ask another question as we are worried about unemployment benefit. Apparently, that protection ceases on 1st October. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether it ceases on 1st October or whether it continues, as would be logical, until the end of the 52 weeks of unemployment entitlement. If it continues for 17 weeks only, that seems unnecessary and rather mean. I shall try to put this matter more clearly, although there is nothing less clear than these regulations. If a married woman leaves a job voluntarily for any domestic reason arising from her responsibilities as a wife and mother, can those facts be taken into account in deciding whether she has a just cause to leave the job voluntarily? I thought that the existing regulations were civilised and that there was nothing much wrong with them. I and many of my noble friends are worried as regards whether these changes will be helpful and kindly.
I apologise if I have misread anything in the regulations. However, the Government appear to be reducing the possibility of benefit for people who are affected by divorce or widowhood and who

83
should receive the maximum level of benefit. We all agree with the intention of bringing men and women more closely into line as regards benefit. But it appears that that will result in a reduction rather than an increase in benefit.
I hope that the Minister can give us some advice on these matters. I hope especially that he can tell us what the Government mean when they say that only a small number of women will be affected. If he does not know what that figure constitutes, I am not sure that the regulations should be accepted. I feel that the word "small" is a useless enumeration as regards the people affected. Further, it is no comfort to a woman who is disadvantaged to be told that she only constitutes one of a small number of people who are so affected. I do not feel one of a small number. I do not think any individual woman who is disadvantaged by these regulations will accept that, because she constitutes one of a small number, she does not matter.
There are all kinds of problems regarding women who give up work to nurse husbands who may be terminally ill or who have to give up work because their children become seriously ill. There are also women who follow the Prime Minister's incantation about looking after the family, and the duty of women to look after their children. I find nothing in the changes in these regulations which will carry out those obligations.
I believe that these Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 are a waste of time because I cannot see any benefit to anyone resulting from them, except to the people in Brussels who insisted that the department here put them on the statute book.
7.50 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the grace and lucidity with which he explained regulations which were described by the Minister in another place as being of a somewhat impenetrable nature.
I am just beginning to learn to cope with the methods of legislation used by the Department of Social Security. I find them peculiarly difficult to follow. I think that I am beginning to learn why. It is because legislation is fitted in a crossword puzzle style into previous existing Acts—notably those of 1975 and 1986. So our regulations fit into slots like "2 down" and "5 across". I can see that it is quite difficult to avoid this, but it puts some pressure on the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Explanatory Memorandum in these regulations is one of the aspects that I find a little defective.
There are several minor matters here. I am delighted to note that the Government have noticed the decline in the quality of the postal service—I hope that that may lead to some improvement. I am also glad to see that they are still endeavouring to clear up the confusion about earnings factors which, if I understand it correctly, arose from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 1985 Budget altering national insurance rates without telling the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was. I quite
84
see why that had to be, but it raises the point that there are some constitutional problems following from our convention of Budget secrecy. I can only say that I hope that they have got it right this time.
The major matter of these orders is the matter of equal treatment between men and women. It is a case where the Government are once again suffering from what used to be known in the Ministry of Agriculture as "Brusselosis". We on these Benches are perfectly happy with the Brussels Directive. It asks for equality between men and women, which is a cause to which I hope no noble Lord has any objection. But, like the noble Baroness, we have some concern about the levelling downward involved in the implementation of this order.
The loss of entitlement for women whose marriages have ended leaves me with some doubt as to whether it will be cost effective. That is not the best moment in a person's life to suffer a loss of benefit. The loss of benefit in turn may have other consequences. It is, for example, a time in people's lives when they very often become homeless, indeed where, in the nature of the case, they are extremely liable to become homeless. It is also a time when they may be unusually liable to become ill. So I wonder whether the saving to public funds arising in one department may be offset by increased expenditure arising in another.
That is a question which I warn the Minister I shall ask on many other occasions. Are the Government sufficiently aware of the effect of the policies they are following in one department upon business in another department, or is the Minister simply shovelling the mess on to the plate of his noble friend the Earl of Caithness?
There is also the question of leaving a job voluntarily. We are told that the old regulation is now no longer necessary because the adjudication officer can consider all relevant matters, or, as it was expressed in another place, he will not be excluded from considering them. I think that we are all familiar with the amendment that proposes to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall". It seems to me that this is a case where it may have been much needed.
I speak, and I am proud to do so, as a member of a family that has a long record of championship of women's rights, going back to the days when my grandfather supported J. S. Mill's amendment to delete the word "males" from the second Reform Bill. Though I am proud of the fact, I am also aware, and feel the need mildly to assert from time to time, that there are such things as men's rights. As we get a more fluid pattern of relationship I think that we should regard it as legitimate that the man may, if he wishes, choose to act as househusband while his wife chooses to earn the family living. If that suits couples I do not see why they should be penalised for doing so.
The Minister, in another place, said that it was:
"perverse … to give a special right to men who had no recent connection with the job market to qualify for unemployment benefit".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 17/5/89, cols. 7–8.]
I am not convinced by that. It seems to me that a man who has been looking after a house and children

85
should acquire just the same rights as a woman does. In the name of equality I cannot see why Her Majesty's Government should dissent from that.
We have the same problem over the question of leaving a job voluntarily. There is a case very well known to me in which the man left his job because his wife was offered a very high promotion in another part of the country which she badly wished to accept. I think that it would be sexist of us to deplore that sort of thing happening and it would be sexist of us, and contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the directive, to use our social security regulations to penalise people in such circumstances.
I am also a little concerned that we are given the cost of administration as one of the reasons for these changes. This seems to me to be part of the continual drive to reduce the numbers of the Civil Service. The numbers of the Civil Service have been increasing steadily ever since the days when Alfred, King of Wessex, began the defence and education budgets. An attempt to put that trend into reverse seems to me to savour of Queen Canute, and I do not think that it will be any more successful.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I rather thought that Canute was male, but let it be.
I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for responding, in somewhat mystified fashion, to these regulations. The first question which the noble Baroness addressed to me was; why bother, why are there regulations at all? She referred specifically to Regulation 2, which is the equal treatment part of these regulations. She asked whether it is a directive from Brussels. No, it is a by-product of the existing equal treatment directive. It is not a matter of equalisation for equalisation's sake, so far as concerns social security.
However, as a result of that directive, where there is sexual inequality in any member state's provisions the member state is honour bound to correct that sexual inequality. That is not to say that we shall end up with exactly the same benefit here as in Germany or in Portugal—where I understand the noble Baroness has been recently, and where I hope that she enjoyed herself. Within the context of equal treatment each social security benefit has to be addressed on its own merits in accordance with member state's individual policies at that time.
I think that it would be useful to remember in connection with these regulations that we are talking only about women receiving credit from their ex-husbands' insurance contributions. Men have never had credits from their ex-wives' contributions. The reason for that is that, over a great many years, men have had their own insurance contributions record through employment. I think that that is as it should be.
The noble Baroness asked why we should not extend the provision to cover men; in other words, level up rather than level down. In many cases—by far and away the greatest number—men have appropriate insurance records of their own. There is therefore no need for such a change, which would affect only a very small number of men, mainly those
86
without such records. There are other parts of the social security system to deal with them.
I can confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it would be administratively expensive and represent a poor use of valuable resources. When I asked this morning, while I was being briefed for this short debate, what that meant, I was told that it was likely—although there is no proof of this matter—that it would cost more to administer than the amounts received in benefit by the prospective claimants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, aided and abetted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, almost suggested that this was a measure designed to produce cuts, but it certainly is not. As I explained, it is designed to comply with EC directives and to help simplify the social security system. The noble Baroness complained when it was said that only a small number of women would be affected. She wanted to know how small was "small". I can tell her that, because those credits are awarded on individual claims and are not recorded on central records, there is no record of, as it were, verifiable numbers. However, we are aware that only about 200 women benefit from those credits in a four-month period. It is therefore estimated that fewer than 300 women will be affected by the revocation of the credits under this order. It may be that some of the women affected by the measure will not regard themselves as being in a small minority, but, when one hears those extraordinary claims that one-third of the population is in poverty, 200 is probably a very small number.
I should add that this is not another erosion of unemployment benefit. It is, as I have said, a minor change affecting a very small number of women. If anything, it reinforces the purpose of the benefit and the contributory principle by removing an anomalous and discriminatory provision. For example, why should a recently divorced woman receive credits on her husband's insurance at all? I accept that widows are in a rather different position.
So far as concerns the abolition of special credits on termination of marriage—another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—those changes follow on from the changes in contribution conditions for short-term benefits introduced in October 1988. They were introduced for everyone else, but they were not introduced for the particular group of women of whom we are talking. For that reason, it is appropriate that the transitional period for the abolition of the regulation should expire on the same day as that for the main changes. For unemployment benefit purposes that will result in some women—fewer than 300—who are in receipt of unemployment benefit in October obtaining less than the maximum 312 days' benefit. That was another point raised by the noble Baroness. For sickness and invalidity benefits the benefit will continue in payment until there is a break in the claim. Any woman who loses unemployment benefit in October as a result of that change will be able to claim income support if her circumstances warrant it.
As I said, I am sympathetic towards widows. When I am asked about the changes made to the widows' benefit scheme during the last year—I am still

87
confident about the adequacy of the benefits paid to widows—I should say that, "Wait until Thursday", would probably be an appropriate comment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, strayed rather dramatically from the strict discussion of this order, but I shall remember what he said and perhaps return to some of the wider points on Thursday.
The noble Baroness asked whether credits for carers were affected by the changes. The answer is, no. They are awarded to those valuable people who give up work and receive invalid care allowance. Those credits are most emphatically not affected by these regulations.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the postal service. There have been some difficulties in the past, accepting that a letter really was written and posted. The only fair way of dealing with the matter is, therefore, to say that, once a letter has arrived in a social security office, it exists because there is proof of its existence. It has nothing to do with the rather lamentable postal service that we experience from time to time in this country. With those answers, I hope that I have covered all the points raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
8.7 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 75.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 347:
Page 86, line 28, after ("localities") insert—
("having particular regard to the needs of persons who, by reason of disability or chronic illness, have a need to consume above average quantities of water").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 349. Amendment No. 347 stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Carter and Lord Allen of Abbeydale who are unavoidably absent at this stage in the Committee proceedings.
These amendments relate particularly to the needs of people who are disabled or who have a chronic illness. By virtue of what one might call, without offence, their condition, they need to have access to and consume more water than is normal. I am certain that the Minister will want to be helpful to the Committee, but I understand from people in the water meter testing areas that there is an implication that the average water consumption per household will be assessed by the water undertakers in order to calculate charges. I have been given the figure of three baths per person per week at a certain depth.
My concern is that people who need to use more than average quantitites of water will be penalised. Such people include those who undergo kidney dialysis, people with incontinence problems who need to bathe and wash their clothes frequently and people on medication which causes them to drink large quantities of water. If it is argued that this is a social security issue which should be addressed by
88
the benefits review, we want an assurance from the Minister that these points will be taken into account.
However, not all disabled people are on benefit.
We believe that there is no moral reason why someone who, through no fault of his own, cannot cut down his water consumption should be penalised financially. The Minister may perhaps make the case that people who, through no fault of their own, need to use a great deal of water will be penalised financially.
Amendment No. 349 seeks to ensure that by regulation there shall be made:
"particular provision for consumers who are disabled or of pensionable age, with respect to the installation, connection, disconnection, use, maintenance, authentication and testing of meters and with respect to any unrelated matters".
I am not privy to the number of people in those circumstances who would be affected but I am sure that the Committee will understand that there are many people who are not as fortunate as most, who do not enjoy general good health and who are not able to look after themselves in many ways. The existing provision in the Gas Act might well be looked at in respect of the powers that the Minister might take. For instance, some of the provisions in the Act mean that the supplier can provide special services. I listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke earlier about the way in which the tariff could go up or down according to the whim or desire of the companies. I should like the Government to take on board that, if the tariff is to be what one might call a movable target, we feel that it should be written on the face of the Bill that people in special—I almost think the word should be desperate—need should have some special consideration and are the kind of people for whom the tariff should be lower rather than higher.
In the Gas Act, for instance, some of the special services provided relate to examining free of charge the safety and fitting of gas meters for disabled and elderly people who live alone; providing special controls and adaptors for gas appliances and for prepayment meters and repositioning such meters; and giving advice on the use of gas and gas fittings. In practice that has meant that meters can be repositioned to an appropriate height for, say, a wheelchair user who may have difficulty in reaching the meter or a person with arthritis who has difficulty bending down.
One such case has been drawn to my attention and I think that the Committee should hear about it. It concerns a disabled woman who has arthritis. She lives in a water meter test area in Wessex Water Authority. A water meter was installed between the cistern and the wall but it was installed upside down and not at eye level. The water authority did not consult the woman about the installation of the meter. Because of her disability, she is unable to bend and therefore cannot reach the meter; neither is she able to rotate her wrist and is unable to press the button on the meter to obtain a reading. Despite the fact that the information from the water authority reads: "Meters will be installed in such a way that they can be read by customers", there was no consultation and this lady had no choice in the site of the meter.
There must therefore be a statutory duty which has regard to the need of disabled customers when designing and installing meters; otherwise the meters will not serve their stated purpose, which is, in the words of the water authority, to enable people to pay for their water service based on the amount of water that they actually use.
I think that I have said sufficient to indicate that we are dealing with an indeterminate number of people. My heart goes out to those who are already suffering in one way or another and who may well suffer even further because they need water in large quantities because of their condition, age or ailments. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 347 requires that in setting charges undertakers may have particular regard to the needs of those disabled and chronically sick who have a need to consume above average quantities of water. The purpose of Amendment No. 349 is to require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make regulations under Clause 77 which would make particular provision for the disabled or those of pensionable age with respect to the installation, connection, disconnection, maintenance, authentication and testing of meters and related matters.
Although I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord's view, we believe that it would be inappropriate for the new water services companies to subsidise their charges to the disabled and chronically sick, or indeed any other vulnerable group such as low income families with young children. The industry currently operates a code of practice which provides advice to domestic customers who have difficulty in paying their bills. The code makes clear that instalment arrangements may be agreed in cases of financial hardship and that it is important for customers to contact the undertaker when they have difficulty in paying their charges so that these arrangements can be agreed.
As the Committee will be aware, particularly since last Thursday, the future code will be considerably stronger still. Extra help is channelled to specific groups, including the long-term sick and disabled, through the premium structure of income-related benefits. We believe that this targets help more effectively on those people who are most in need, an example of which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in the case of dialysis patients. In dialysis the consumption of water varies between 40 gallons and 120 gallons per week depending upon the machine and the treatment. The cost of that represents between 11p and 33p per week. That is why we feel that it will be better to deal with it through the specific aiming of payments rather than on the face of the Bill itself.
Turning to Amendment No. 349, once again I have every sympathy with the noble Lord's views. Clause 178(2)(d) already gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State a general power to make regulations with different provision in relation to different persons; for example, about the special
90
needs of the disabled. This will be done if the results of the metering trials or the experience from the introduction of widespread metering generally indicate that it is necessary to supplement the existing regulations about metering, which have been made under Section 5 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988, with further regulations catering for the special needs of the old and disabled. However, since the trials have only just got under way, it is too early to draw any firm conclusions. Nonetheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will keep the situation under review.
I hope that, given my earlier remarks and this particular assurance, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the two amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way in understanding the case. We are talking in terms of circumstances that we believe will arise, although they may not do so. To that extent it would be churlish not to accept what the Minister has said, which is that the problem is perceived, it is doubted whether anything needs to be written on the face of the Bill and there are provisions within the Bill whereby special circumstances can be taken into account.
The Minister rests his case in the main on saying that those in dire circumstances—in other words, those who need financial assistance—will find by one route or another under existing benefits and regulations that they will be able to obtain assistance. However, there will be many people such as those I have mentioned who will be neither entitled to the social security net nor privy to it nor involved in it. The argument might be put that if they are not, it means that in a certain way they do not really need assistance. I am trying to give to people who, if not already desperately unhappy are indeed suffering in one way or another, the feeling that the country recognises that they deserve to have better consideration and service which is a little cheaper to them than to others.
I do not of course speak for anyone other than myself, but whenever I am told that part of the impost that I bear for anything is levied in order that people who are less able than I to look after themselves may have something more quickly, cheaply or more easily, then I rest content. That is not a philosophy or a political creed. There are millions of people without any political affiliations whatsoever who share the same view. It may be called Christianity; one may be called a Good Samaritan or whatever. There are lots of people who will quite cheerfully pay a fraction of a penny more for their water in order to enable other people to feel that the rest of the community acknowledge their difficulties. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 348 not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Provisions relating to charging by volume]:
[Amendments Nos. 348A, 349 and 349ZA not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 349A:
Page 89, leave out line 27.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Clause 74(4) seems to protect the rights of those who have a private water supply. It states:
"The powers in relation to which this section has effect shall not be exercised so as to contravene any local statutory provision which expressly provides that no charge shall be made for a particular service".
Amendment No. 349A leaves out paragraph (h) of Clause 77(3). The paragraph states that the Secretary of State may by regulations,
"repeal or amend any local statutory provision".
I am trying to discover whether those people who at present are provided with a free water supply—through some arrangement or statutory provision, which may go back even into the last century—are still entitled to expect that supply to be free. Alternatively, does Clause 77 mean that the Secretary of State may repeal any local statutory provision and that such private water supply may suddenly be cut off?
There is an excellent brewery in the Isle of Wight called Burts of Ventnor. People come many hundreds of miles to drink its beer. It has only about 10 public houses. It has had a free water supply for a long time. This means that its beer is comparatively cheap. I am sure that many of us on the island and elsewhere would be very sorry if Burts were to lose that supply. No doubt there are many such cases around the country that other Members of the Committee could relate.
Amendment No. 349A is a probing amendment. Are those people, at present recognised by the water companies and the water authorities as being entitled to a private water supply, still protected when this measure goes on to the statute book? I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would mean that my right honourable friend will no longer have a specific power to make regulations to repeal or amend local statutory provisions to do with water metering.
By removing this power, the amendment would also remove an important consumer protection measure. It would make it difficult for my right honourable friend and water undertakers to tidy up local powers which conflict with the metering code. This code can be said to be formed by Schedule 10 to the Bill and regulations already made under Section 5 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. Those regulations will be saved by Schedule 25 to this Bill and may be supplemented or amended in the future by regulations under Clause 77. All regulations made under Clause 77 are subject to negative resolution procedure of either House of Parliament.
92
The metering code is intended to apply to all metered customers. It contains a number of provisions designed to safeguard the interests of consumers, for example, maximum fees for testing meters and how bills will be adjusted when meters are proven to be inaccurate. The continuing existence of local enactments which conflict with the code would serve only to confuse customers as to their rights which is clearly not in their interest. This power under subsection (3)(h) for my right honourable friend to make regulations is not new. It merely re-enacts a similar power in Section 6 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 which was considered by this Chamber only last year.
On the particular points that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, raised, the power is to do with local metering powers only. As to free supplies, they are protected under Clause 74(4). With these assurances and understandings I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, will see fit to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: It took a long time to get there, but I am very grateful because the Minister has confirmed what I was seeking to clarify. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 350 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 350A:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Restrictions on power to make connection and certain other charges.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, nothing in this Chapter or in any other enactment shall entitle any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker to fix, demand or recover an initial charge for its becoming, or for its taking steps for the purpose of becoming—

(a) the person who provides a supply of water for domestic purposes to any premises; or

(b) the person who provides sewerage services for the purposes of the drainage for domestic purposes of any premises.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, nothing in subsection (1) above or in any other enactment shall be construed as prohibiting the fixing, demand or recovery by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker of—

(a) a charge for the connection to a water supply of premises which have never at any previous time (whether before or on or after the transfer date) been connected to a supply of water provided for domestic purposes by a water undertaker or by any other authority or body which at that time provided supplies of water in the course of carrying out functions under any enactment; or

(b) a charge for the connection to a public sewer of premises which have never at any previous time (whether before or on or after the transfer date) been connected to a sewer used for the drainage for domestic purposes of those premises by a sewerage undertaker or by any other authority or body which at that time provided sewerage services in the course of carrying out functions under any enactment.

(3) Nothing in this Chapter or in any other enactment or in the terms of any agreement under section 18 of the Public Health Act 1936 (agreements to adopt sewers and works) shall authorise a sewerage undertaker to require any payment to be made to the undertaker in respect of the making by the undertaker of any declaration of vesting under Part II of that Act or in respect of any agreement to make such a declaration.
(4) Nothing in this Chapter or in any other enactment shall authorise a sewerage undertaker to require any payment to be made to the undertaker by a highway authority in respect of the drainage of any highway or the disposal of the contents of any drain or sewer used for draining any highway.
(5) The preceding provisions of this section, so far as they restrict the making of certain charges, are without prejudice—

(a) to enactments by virtue of which a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker may recover expenses incurred by it in carrying out works; and

(b) to the power of any such undertaker, by virtue of section 74(3) above, to fix the amount of any of its other charges by reference to such matters as it thinks appropriate.

(6) The references in this section to domestic purposes, in relation to the drainage of any premises, shall be construed as references to any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of section 70 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Provisions relating to Meters etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 219, line 44, after ("meter") insert ("to be used in determining the amount of any charges").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendment No. 351 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 352 to 354. These amendments are designed to clarify water and sewerage undertakers' powers to recover the cost of metering new non-domestic supplies and trade-effluent discharges from the customer.
Water undertakers already have powers in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988, which are re-enacted in Clause 43 of this Bill, to require developers to pay for the cost of installing a meter as a condition of connecting a new supply for domestic purposes. Undertakers can also make it a condition of an agreement for a new non-domestic supply under Clause 46 that a meter is installed and that the customer pays by measure. In such cases, it is only fair that the developer or new customer should pay for the cost of a meter to be installed, which can run into several thousand pounds in the case of a very large diameter supply. However, the present drafting of paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 does not enable water or sewerage undertakers to recover the cost of installing meters directly from new non-domestic customers or developers.
In cases of dispute concerning the terms of any agreement for a supply of water for non-domestic purposes—for example, over the cost of installing a meter—Clause 46 provides for the director general to make a determination or refer the matter to arbitration by such a person as he may appoint. There are similar provisions in Schedule 8 to this Bill for the director to decide appeals against conditions of trade effluent consents under Section 2 of the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937.
In drafting the Bill it has always been our intention that domestic and non-domestic customers should be treated on an equal footing, wherever possible. This group of amendments will ensure that this is achieved where the terms of new agreements with non-domestic customers require them to have a
94
meter installed and to pay by measure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 352 to 354:
Page 220, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) any sums which it is entitled to recover in pursuance of any terms or conditions determined under section 46 of this Act;").
Page 220, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) any expenses incurred in relation to a meter which is or is to be used in determining the amount of—

(i) any charges which are to be paid in connection with the carrying out of a sewerage undertaker's trade effluent functions; or

(ii) any charges provision for which is contained in an agreement entered into in accordance with section 7 of the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937;").

Page 220, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a sewerage undertaker's trade effluent functions is a reference to its functions under the Public Health [Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937, Part V of the Public Health Act 1961 and sections 43 to 45 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355 and 355A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 78 [Prohibition on charging by rateable value]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 355AB:
Page 89, line 46, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for a rating valuation list made under section 67 of the General Rating Act 1967 to be amended to provide for dwellings that have been erected or altered after 31st March 1990.").
The noble Lord said: It is just possible that I may be told that Amendment No. 350A, which the Government introduced earlier this afternoon, covers this matter, but the gist of this amendment is that it seeks to cover any new properties built after 31st March next year which are not on a meter. In other words they are not being charged for a supply by volume. We know that the Government have given the new plcs, up to the turn of the century to decide on which basis they are to charge, whether by volume or some form of metering. Until then the old rateable value basis will be used for existing properties. However, what happens in relation to new properties built in the intervening period? The amendment suggests that we should be able to use the existing valuation list, which in many cases will be used for other purposes. Obviously the Inland Revenue will be obliged to assess the rateable value of new properties based on the term s of the existing list.
If the Government believe that their Amendment No. 350A—it raised some queries in the Committee but we are not entirely sure whether we have the

95
right answer—covers this matter, I accept it. But, if that is not the case, what will happen to properties which are built in the intervening period but which are not metered? How will the basis be charged? Is it to be left totally to the plcs or is there some way in which properties can be assessed on the rateable value based on the existing valuation list? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the rating valuation list made under the General Rate Act 1967 to be amended to include valuations for dwellings that have been altered or erected after 31st March 1990. It would provide an expensive and undesirable method for maintaining the domestic rating systems for water charging purposes until the prohibition on the use of rateable values, provided for by this clause, comes into effect on 1st April 2000.
Maintaining the 1973 valuation list purely for water charging purposes would be expensive. Valuers and support staff would have to be retained by the Valuation Office and support staff would have to be retained by the Valuation Office to inspect and value each new and altered property. This would mean that they would not be able to be redeployed on other duties. There would need to be a procedure for dealing with appeals about valuations, possibly involving valuation tribunals. All this would cost money which would have to be met by the new water companies and recovered by them through higher charges to customers, or at the expense of the taxpayer.
The amendment we believe is unnecessary. Many water undertakers have already announced their intention to require all new properties and conversions to be metered, at the developer's expense, as a condition of connecting a new supply using powers available to them under Schedule 1 to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. These powers, which are to be re-enacted under Clause 43, provide a fair and inexpensive way of dealing with new properties and major alterations. Other undertakers have indicated that they intend to introduce a flat rate charge for new domestic properties. Once again, such an option is clearly less expensive than getting new properties and conversions valued.
The amendment is undesirable since rateable values provide only a very rough proxy for water consumption, which as we all know can be unfair, particularly for small households living in highly rated properties. Preserving after 1st April 1990 the system of relativities which were relevant when the 1973 list was drawn up for newly built or altered properties will serve only to compound the inequities of the present method of charging. Clearly, the sooner new methods of charging are introduced the better.
There are good reasons for allowing the new water companies to continue to use existing rateable values until the year 2000, particularly if they decide to introduce widespread metering, because installation programmes would need to be phased over several
96
years. These reasons do not apply to new and substantially altered properties, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I believe that there will be inequities both ways. There will be people up to the year 2000 who will still be paying on the basis of the old valuation list and others who have had their houses built from now on who will be metered, but not in all cases. We know already that the Welsh authority will not be metering, so there must be some other basis of charge. Whatever the Government say about inequities, there will be inequities.
It is totally unrealistic to say that valuation lists will not be used. They will be used for rental increases and we shall all be using rateable values for some years to come. The valuation officers have been basing valuations on the terms of the 1973 list for the last 16 years and no doubt that will continue. In withdrawing my amendment, I draw the attention of the general public to the unsatisfactory nature of this answer for those people who, apparently, if they move into a house built post-1990 will be on a basis different from those applied in most parts of the country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 78 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Although I wholeheartedly support this clause in respect of domestic rates, because they are being superseded by the community charge, to the best of my knowledge there will continue to be business and industrial rates for some years to come. I see no reason why those properties should not be charged by the water or sewage undertaker on the basis of their rateable value unless and until those properties are metered. It is for this reason that I suggest that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: This clause will prevent water and sewerage undertakers from fixing any charges, to both domestic and non-domestic customers, by direct or indirect reference to any rateable value, after 31st March 2000. The domestic rating system will be abolished on the introduction of the community charge next April. As domestic rateable values become increasingly out of date, it will become increasingly inappropriate to use them as the basis for water and sewerage charges—even more so than it is now. The new water services companies will therefore have to find alternative means of charging their customers. Options currently being considered by the water industry include metering and a flat rate charge, possibly with extra charges for the use of hosepipes and sprinklers, or a combination of both methods. It will be for each company to decide which method or methods of charging to adopt in the light of its own circumstances and the results of the metering trials.
As the majority of domestic customers, and many non-domestic customers, currently have their charges based on the rateable value of their properties, it will be no small task for the companies

97
to choose and implement their new method of charging. This is especially true if a company decides to introduce metering, where the installation programme would be complex and would have to be phased over several years. This clause therefore allows the water and sewerage undertakers a period of 10 years in which to implement their new methods of charging. Any method they adopt must comply with the conditions in the instrument of appointment prohibiting undue discrimination against or undue preference to any class of customers. During this time they will be able to continue to use the values on the 1973 valuation lists and those on lists created under Section 41 or Section 52 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
The prohibition is to extend to charges indirectly or partly related to any value shown on a rating list. So companies will not be able simply to uprate existing rateable value-based charges for inflation, nor will they be allowed to use banded rateable values. However, companies will not be prevented from basing charges on factors which may affect rateable values such as floor area or the number of habitable rooms in a property. This will allow undertakers to use such factors as the basis of a new system of unmeasured charges and for apportioning joint meter readings to properties on shared supplies where the cost of separating the supply can be very expensive.
Companies will be able to recover charges fixed for any period up to 31st March 2000 but not paid by that date. All other charges which contravene the prohibition will be irrecoverable. The prohibition will not apply to charges made by the National Rivers Authority.
I recommend that the clause stand part.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for that explanation. I am sure that it will clear up many misunderstandings in relation to businesses and industries. I agree that Clause 78 as drafted should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 355B not moved.]
Clause 79 [Exemption from charges for water for fire fighting]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 355C:
Page 90, line 5, after second ("of") insert ("training personnel or of").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 355D and 355E. Their purpose is to discuss the free availability of water in order to carry out certain functions in respect of the fire service. The effect of the amendments would be to extend the provisions of free water to water authorities to include that used for the purpose of training and dealing with emergencies other than fires. We believe that the amendments are necessary in order to ensure that increased charges following privatisation do not lead to a situation in which financial pressure might compel fire authorities to
98
reduce training provisions or constrain themselves to deal only with particular types of emergencies.
The amendments are tabled for a further purpose; namely, we should like the Government to give a firm statement that water used by fire authorities for the purpose of extinguishing fires will continue to be provided free of charge, and also that some reports suggesting that the water authorities are pressing the Government to allow them to charge for such water can therefore be discounted as a cause for concern.
When the legislation was originally drafted firemen did little more than hold a hose from which water was emitted. However, the: technique of fighting fires has undergone an updating, if not a radical review. Water is now mixed with chemicals and the resultant mixture is applied to the fire. That updating means that there has been a recent proper upgrade in the level of training. Water is supplied free of charge for the testing of equipment. Therefore we believe that water which is required for training personnel to operate that equipment should also be free of charge. The water so consumed is almost immediately returned to the water authority via the drainage system. I submit that it is a waste of public money to require the additional equipment and administration necessary to raise charges for that insignificant field of activity.
As regards other emergency services, the Minister may well tell the Committee that such a provision is not required. However, we are advised by local authorities that they would like to see it written on the face of the Bill. In addition to fighting fires, special services are provided by a fire authority. The example of the fire brigade being called to rescue a cat from a tree is often replaced by its being called to free people trapped in lifts in tower blocks. That is a matter which needs to be taken into account.
At the end of this week the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will have the pleasure of visiting Edmonton where he will see a substantial upgrading in the provisions. I recall that, sadly, some tower blocks were the subject of adverse comments and firemen were frequently called our. to deal with broken lifts. The noble Earl will see a vast improvement in the situation and it is a credit to the local authority and all those concerned. We are asking for special circumstances whereby when the fire brigade is called out to perform such duties it should be able to do so without cost.
There is also the duty of clearing the increased number of chemical spillages. I do not wish to be a scaremonger but, sadly, chemical spillages on our roads are more prevalent. In order to clear them, a considerable amount of water is required. Although the amendments may not be correctly drawn, they are designed to exempt the supply of water used in dealing with such cases as it is exempt from fire fighting. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 79 prohibits water undertakers from charging for water taken to extinguish fires or test fire fighting equipment or for the availability of water for those purposes. It is based upon Section 2 of the Water Act 1981 which, although it was never brought into force, is to be

99
repealed by this Bill. The purpose of these amendments is to extend the prohibition on charging to include water taken for fire fighting training exercises or for other emergency services provided by a fire authority.
I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. As one who dwells for part of his life on the 17th floor of Marsham Street, I am pleased to say that the Government will consider this group of amendments with a view to amending the Bill on Report. Having given that undertaking I invite him to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord does so, I rise to declare an interest in that I am associated with the chemical industry. I also do so to ask what evidence the noble Lord has to show that the number of chemical spillages is now greater.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The evidence is the advice that I have received from the local authority associations. That may not be acceptable to the noble Lord. I was careful not to say that I have quantifiable evidence. However, the associations tell me that more chemicals are available and are now used in industry. They must be transported on our roads and inevitably, because of the road conditions, accidents occur.
I should like to respond to the noble Lord's comment about living on the 17th floor of Marsham Street. On this Bill life is full of ups and downs! I was pleased to hear his comments and I am sure that they will be accepted with gratitude by the local authorities. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 355D and 355E not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Initial Government holdings]:
[Amendment No. 356 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 357:
Page 90, line 23, leave out ("from time to time").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 358 and 359. The purpose of the amendments is to require the Secretary of State to pay to each of the new water plcs a share of the proceeds of the sale of the new companies on the market; a share for each plc to be related to the value of the assets transferred to each of the regional water authorities under the 1973 Act.
At that time local authorities opposed the passage of the Bill in the Commons and only withdrew their opposition in return for agreement by the Government to a majority of local authority members on each regional water authority. That was conceded by the Secretary of State of the day. Ten years later, by the 1983 Act, the Government
100
abolished the local authority majority on each regional water authority and reduced the boards to small executive bodies appointed by the Secretary of State.
The local authorities accepted that loss of control over their assets reluctantly but on the grounds that the water industry was still in the public sector. However, now that the Government are privatising the water industry, the local authorities consider that in the interests of their ratepayers they should claim for the value of the assets transferred in 1973.
I understand that about 20 major local authorities have joined forces to prepare a legal action accordingly. Our amendment would secure a payment to the new water plcs and not to the local authorities. However, as the implication for the plcs is a reduction of water charges, and as that would benefit every household and industry in the country, it seems possible that the embattled local authorities might feel able to accept that as a significant compensation for their ratepayers, and they would terminate their legal action. I hope so.
The amendments have a second purpose; namely, to strengthen the financial position of the water plcs, in fact to give them a dowry, as they prepare to start trading as private companies. With the possible exception of Thames Water Authority, the regional water authorities appear to be seriously under-funded to meet the costs of privatisation plus the heavy capital programme required to conform with EC standards. Unless that shortage is remedied, the shares in the new plcs will be difficult to sell. Secondly, an uncomfortably high increase in charges will be necessary next year and in subsequent years.
Perhaps I may spell out those two major financial burdens. On Second Reading I gave an estimate of £843 million for the cost of privatisation. My noble friend refuted my figure but did not tell us the correct one. I still believe that my figure was about right. That is equal to about plus 27 per cent. on charges. On the capital expenditure programme, the water authorities have been given an uncomfortable boost by the need to conform within four years, which was the amendment which noble Lords opposite recently succeeded in making, with the EC drinking water standards. Therefore an accelerated programme of denitrification is needed and the estimated cost of that is between £2 billion to £3 billion, which is very expensive.
Incidentally, I understand that the European environment commissioner is Italian. I should like to know how he is getting on with water standards in his own country. I can give him some personal experience of swimming in the sea around the short outfalls off the coast of Italy. It will take many years before all those are dealt with. However, we have to conform with the standards. It is evident that the requirements for completing about one third of the long outfalls in the sea as well as many inland sewage treatment plants requiring rebuilding necessitates a very large capital expenditure. I estimated the capital expenditure for the 10 plcs over the next five years as something in the order of £10 billion—a very large sum. My noble friend the Minister has seen the asset management plans of the industry and he can confirm whether that is right.
To meet annual capital expenditure of that order plus dividends and taxation will commit the new water companies to a progression of steeply rising water charges. That would be a disastrous start for the new private water companies and I am sure that the Minister will not contemplate any such thing. There has been much speculation in the media about the provision of a dowry to strengthen the finances of the new water companies in order to enable them to manage those substantial commitments. Our amendment suggests one way of providing that, and obviously there could be others.
For example, the remission of the existing loan account amounting to around £5 billion, four fifths of which is held by the Government. I see that under Clause 83 my noble friend is taking the power to extinguish by statutory order existing loans from the National Loans Fund with the consent of the Treasury—and I hardly need say that. Although that would not be directly related to the value of the assets transferred in 1973, the effect would be the same. That is, that the new water companies could manage their formidable capital programme within the range of reasonable future increases in water charges. That would certainly meet in substance the aim of our amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to our amendment, and whether he can accept it as a solution to the problem. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: In rising to support my noble friend Lord Nugent, not for the first time, perhaps I may say that I am six weeks wiser than when I last supported him in one of his earlier amendments because the six weeks during which I have deserted your Lordships' Chamber have been devoted to attending a Select Committee on the Cardiff Barrage Bill which is entirely concerned with water. In saying that I am six weeks wiser, I do not mean that I am six weeks wiser than my noble friend because that would be impossible, but I am six weeks wiser than I was.
In announcing the Committee's decision, the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, our chairman, said that the report would be made to the House. Therefore, it would be highly improper of me to pre-empt that report by referring to matters given on oath before us, to the evidence or to the conclusions to which we have come, which, perhaps I may say, I have not seen in draft so I cannot commit an indiscretion by suggesting what they may be.
One thing we did, which was unprivileged, was to pay a visit to Cardiff to talk to the local dignitaries about the problems there. That was not evidence given on oath but personal conversations with people of importance. One matter which made me realise what an immense task lies ahead of us is that the South West Water Authority does not know where all the sewers are. It only knows those it has been able to discover since it was incorporated, and there are still sources of pollution of unknown origin permeating the waters of the Ely and the Taff. Those have to be discovered by a process of research.
Talking of research, perhaps I may slightly chance the subject to my own shopping habits, because as
102
a bachelor I have to do my shopping on my way to your Lordships' House. I pause in a little street called Stratford Road which is a short cut between Earls Court Road and Marloes Road which lead into the Cromwell Road. During the past year both sides of Stratford Road have been dug up by every public utility that one can imagine. On the last occasion when, to my exasperation, I found I could not get through, I located someone who looked like a foreman. I said, "In heaven's name what are you doing?" His answer was monosyllabic—or nearly so. It was two syllables. He said, "Research". The roads were being dug up to find out what was underneath because no one knew. It is centuries since our sewerage systems were created. There is going to be an immense amount of this kind of research—all of which has to be paid for—because we simply do not know what is under our pavements
One point made to me is that the fresh waterway to be secured behind the barrage at Cardiff will not be suitable for what are called immersible sports. There are various kinds of water sports. Dinghy sailing is one of them. Although one may occasionally upset a dinghy it is not necessarily part of the whole operation. Water skiing, wind surfing and swimming involve immersion in water and it can be presumed that one will swallow water at some time or other.
Last Saturday I was privileged, as the guest of Mowlem, which is in charge of much of the London Dockland scheme, to visit the control tower of the City of London airport. There before me I saw the airstrip with planes taking off and landing; there also I saw the King George V dock with boys and girls water skiing to their heart's content. So it is possible to reclaim dockland in such a way as to have immersible sports. However, if the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme is to succeed, a great deal of money will probably have to be spent. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that generous finance must be provided—a dowry that endows the water supply public companies as far ahead as can be foreseen. This must not be a windfall for the Treasury. Whatever we get from the public from the sale of these undertakings should be paid over to the companies as working capital. I support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are a number of elements in this group of amendments with which we have some sympathy. We certainly have great sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendments as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. These amendments recognise that in a sense what is being done in the Bill is a form of institutionalised theft against the local authorities who spent so much money—not their money; it is never the local authorities' money, but the ratepayers' money—over the years in building up the assets of the water authorities which were taken away from them by the 1973 Water Act. The amendments recognise that there is a difference between those assets which come from the local authorities—in other words, those built up before 1973—and those which were

103
built up by the regional authorities in the following years.
To that extent the analysis of the amendments is impeccable. However, the conclusion surely is not impeccable, however much the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, may be representing the views of 20 local authorities who have been seeking to take action against the Government. What the amendments actually propose is that the pre-1973 assets, taken from the local authorities by the 1973 Water Bill on the basis that they would remain in public ownership with the new regional water authorities having a majority of elected members on them—this was why there was no strong objection by the local authorities to the Bill—should be given to the successor companies. The amendments are not proposing that the assets should be given back to the people who built them up but that they should be given to the privatised successor companies. I find that an extraordinary argument. In effect we are saying that the industry should still be given away but that it should be given away to private companies as a dowry, the word used—
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. The money should be given as working capital. One cannot run a business without working capital.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is neither my responsibility nor that of the noble Earl that there is a proposal to privatise the water industry. In many ways the noble Earl is as unhappy as I am about that. I certainly agree that capital must be produced for the water and sewerage industry, but that is the responsibility of the Government who are trying to privatise the industry. We shall shortly—in fact, let us come to it now—be dealing with the accumulated debts of the industry in relation to its assets. That affects the viability of the flotation.
I agree with the noble Earl. The water industry should have an adequate working capital to carry out the capital and revenue works necessary, but the Government's proposals do not allow that. All that these amendments do, in effect, is transfer funds from the Treasury, which would otherwise benefit from the flotation, directly to the successor companies. I object enough to selling off the publicly-owned water industry; I object even more to giving it away, which paradoxically would result from these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the local authorities' view that the Government do not own the industry they are trying to sell. Anyone who looks at the industry over the years will realise that that is indeed the case. Until 1973 local authorities ran and paid for 75 per cent. of water supplies—that is, all but those owned by the statutory water companies—and 100 per cent. of the sewerage services. If one takes a specific example I can do no better than refer to Birmingham. Until 1973, Birmingham was the largest public sector body in the water industry, apart from the Metropolitan Water Board in London. The growth of the Birmingham water industry came from the initiative,
104
above all, of Joseph Chamberlain in the 19th century. In the early part of the 19th century Birmingham had appalling squalor and appalling urban conditions. The average life expectancy in the early 19th century in Birmingham was 32 years. There was a Birmingham water company under private control which supplied water to only half of the population of Birmingham and supplied it for only three days a week. Only 150,000 people had piped water. Together with those who did not have this piped water supply, for the rest of the time these people had to drink from contaminated wells. There is no doubt and no wonder that the effect was that cholera, typhoid and smallpox were endemic in Birmingham.
As regards sewerage there was virtually no provision at all. Open conduits carrying untreated sewage went to Saltley where it was discharged untreated into the River Tame. It became apparent to the people of Birmingham and those who ran the city that this was absolutely unacceptable. In 1849 a calculation was made that to supply a complete water drainage and sewerage system for every household in Birmingham would cost tuppence a week. Although Birmingham was a booming economy, the boom was in manufacturing industry for export and it was not in providing services. So the waterworks company or anybody else was simply not prepared to do that work.
In 1859 the Birmingham Town Council obtained an improvement Act authorising the spending of a two-shilling rate and the issuing of loans for water and sewerage investment. It spent £200,000—a great deal of money—to give some of the basic infrastructure that was needed. The economist group on the council, who were really the precursors of Thatcherite conservatism, agreed under pressure that it had to do more than that. That was despite the fact that the waterworks company took the council to court in 1868 for having the audacity to supply free water.
In 1872 the Disraeli government passed the Public Health Act. That was the basis on which Joseph Chamberlain was able, on behalf of the Birmingham Council, to acquire the waterworks company, for which it spent £1.35 million. That was an enormous amount of money in those days. From that time the whole condition of the water and sewerage service in Birmingham was transformed. It was done by the council, and as Chamberlain said,
"it is difficult and indeed almost impossible to reconcile the rights and interests of the public with the claims of any individual company seeking as its natural and legitimate object the largest private gain".
That arose from a situation where 100 years ago the Birmingham Mail reported:
"without the additions which have been made the town would have been a desert or Sahara, while the Edgbaston horticulturists would have been reduced to the necessity of moistening their lawns with beer".
Over the years the town council carried out a series of progressive measures to provide the water and sewerage services that were necessary. It constructed a whole series of reservoirs in the Elan Valley in Wales which was probably the largest civil engineering project in the 19th century. It had a

105
gravity-fed aqueduct which brought water 80 miles from Wales. This work was carried out entirely at the expense of the citizens of Birmingham and by no one else. There was no government subvention of any kind. It was paid for through the general rate fund or, as water consumers, through the charges levied.
In the 1920s and 1930s trunk sewerage and drainage mains were constructed to ensure that all foul water could be fed to sewage treatment works rather than being discharged untreated into the Tame. In the 1950s more water was needed and the Claerwen Valley dam was constructed in Wales. In the 1960s there was a comprehensive reconstruction of sewers. In 1973 when the Water Act was passed and Birmingham's water undertaking was split up to form parts of the Severn, Trent and Welsh water authorities, the capital value of the investment of the people of Birmingham was estimated at £507 million.
That is the legacy which it is now proposed that the Government should sell off to the private sector, with the proceeds going to the Treasury. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, proposes not that the proceeds should go to the Treasury but to the successor water companies. I do not believe that the people of Birmingham will thank either the Government or the noble Lord for the solution that is proposed. This is public investment made over a long period of years by foresighted and mostly Conservative city fathers with the funds produced by the ratepayers of Birmingham. I can produce this example over and over again from other cities in England and Wales. It is not right that this should happen and the noble Lord's amendment, however well intentioned, does not solve the problem or remedy the injustice that is proposed.
The Earl of Caithness: The Committee will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for setting out so clearly the intentions behind his amendments. Perhaps I may recap; the effect of these amendments is to require the Secretary of State to offer securities in the water authorities' successor companies for sale to the public by auction or tender in a way that realises the best price obtainable. They then require that the sums received by the Secretary of State on disposal of the securities are divided between the companies and the Treasury. The amount received by the companies is to represent the value of property, rights and liabilities transferred to the relevant water authority under the Water Act 1973. Companies are to use their share of proceeds for purposes for which capital is properly applicable.
Amendment No. 359A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also diverts proceeds from the Consolidated Fund, but instead of diverting proceeds to the successor companies they would go to any local authority from which assets were transferred in 1973, or its successor. Perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 359A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, being an amendment to my noble friend's Amendment No. 359. In justification of this amendment the noble Lord said that the Treasury is not entitled to the proceeds from the disposal of assets transferred
106
from local authorities to water authorities in 1973. The implication is that the Government, representing the taxpayer, have no right to those assets or the proceeds from their sale. I believe that this is a fundamentally mistaken perception of the effect of the Water Act 1973, the Water Act 1983 and the present Bill.
There can be no doubt that various assets which before 1973 belonged to local authorities were lawfully transferred by schemes made under the Water Act 1973 to the present water authorities. The Act did not require any compensation to be paid, but as is usual with transfers within the considerable public sector, debts were transferred together with the assets. It is worth stressing this, for it is interesting how the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, refers only to assets and never to debts taken over. He also refers exclusively to ratepayers having met the cost of past capital works without acknowledging the contribution of taxpayers through the grant system. It was the ordinary man and woman in the street and their forebears who paid for our water and sewerage systems. Whatever the effect of the 1973 Act in giving local authorities a continuing involvement in the control of water authorities, this was overtaken, again with the approval of Parliament, when the Water Act 1983 reduced the excessive size of water authority boards and removed the automatic majority of local government representatives.
The 1973 transfers were effected by or under statute, and the same will be true of the transfers which will be made under the Water Bill. The Bill at present provides, as is appropriate for the disposal of property owned by the Government, that the proceeds of the sale of securites shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund. This provision will be found in Clause 80(7).
I turn now to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent. At one stage he said that there were alternatives to his amendment. In particular he drew the Committee's attention to Clause 83 under which the Government will first have extinguished all the debts which the water authorities owe at the time of the transfer date to the National Loans Fund. Those debts will be of the order of about £5 billion, as he indicated. However, his amendment does not provide for the amount of debt extinguished to be taken into account before the distribution of proceeds to the successor companies. Of course I understand my noble friend's arguments and concerns but I should like to make some points which should serve to qualify them.
First, we need to put in place a system of regulation of water charges which will stand the test of time. The price of water and sewerage will have to rise as the public demand higher water quality and reduced pollution from sewage effluent. In discussing this issue it is common ground that we do not want an on-going annual subsidy. This distorts prices, weakens signals to investors and providers of capital and leaves the Government too much involved in what should be commercial matters. Moreover, if it is the polluter who is to pay—I think that that is generally agreed—we must seek to make sure that industrial polluters as well as the customers pay for

107
their share of pollution as it applies to water supply and sewage treatment works. This is what we are doing.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will also have a duty to Parliament to obtain the best possible value for the assets he is selling. As some noble Lords will be aware, some Secretaries of State in the past have been accused by the Public Accounts Committee of underpricing public assets. I have to say that noble Lords have today been in an exceptionally generous mood with taxpayers' money, for which my right honourable friend is responsible perhaps rather more than this Chamber, though with the reform of the House of Lords in the offing from the party of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it might be that the House of Lords will be allowed to deal with money matters again.
Where I think the Government will be able to help is to say that it is not our intention to maximise proceeds at the expense of the substantial capital programmes that are to be undertaken. We are very well aware of the need to set up the WS plcs, each separate one of them, on the basis of a capital structure which reflects the obligations on each business and in particular the size of their required investment programme over the years ahead.
As in all privatisations the Government will write off all the National Loans Fund debt in the run-up to flotation as part of the process of putting in place new capital structures appropriate for the WS plcs. The assets of the National Loans Fund will be reduced accordingly, but the Government will have new assets in the form of equity and debt securities in the WS plcs. We do not yet have all the information that we need to assess the appropriate balance between equity and debt now. But we can say that the capital structures of each of the WS plcs will be determined in the light of the circumstances and needs of that company.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that what I have said shows sensitivity to the points which have been made. Prices will rise to meet higher standards, but I think the Government are able to meet the concerns of all sides of the Committee by saying that three factors will restrain the rate of increase. First, under the stimulus of price control, the industry will share efficiency gains with the customer. These are gains which would not be so effectively encouraged in the public sector or if the companies were subject to dividend control.
Secondly, in the capital restructuring which I have described we shall ensure that the successor companies are not encumbered by an unreasonably large burden of debt and we shall ensure that each company is in a position fully to meet its obligations. I think that is especially important in view of the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It is not our intention to maximise proceeds at the expense of the substantial capital programmes that are to be taken.
Thirdly—and this is new to Members of the Committee—we shall be bringing forward further government amendments at Report stage to
108
underpin this. We shall ensure that customers share the benefit of any disposals of surplus land in future, so there will be no question of asset stripping at the expense of the consumer.
I believe that it would be inappropriate for this Chamber to seek to add to those factors by putting additional taxpayers' money into the pot, on top of the debt write-off which I have already described.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly the Minister has made a number of very significant statements and it would be virtually impossible for me to respond in an authoritative way to the complex arguments which he has put forward. Therefore I wish to thank him for what he said. I take the opportunity of rising now to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who must close the debate on this amendment.
As I understand it, the principal point that he is making is that the debt to the National Loans Fund will be written off. I understand that he is saying so for three reasons: first, that this will encourage the efficiency of the private sector—well, that is a matter upon which he knows we disagree—secondly, that the successor companies, and ultimately the plcs, will not be encumbered by a large burden of debt; and, thirdly, that there will be amendments introduced to ensure that customers share the benefit of surplus land disposal, so that we shall not have the sort of asset stripping which we had with the sale of the Royal Ordnance Factories to British Aerospace.
As to the third reason, I think that I can give that an unequivocal welcome. Of course we wait to see the text of the amendments which will be introduced, but anything which ensures that customers share the benefits of the disposal of surplus land must be worth while. It will be most interesting to see the comments of the financial press as to the effect that this will have on the viability of flotation. One can see that this is all part of a package whereby the flotation is being enormously helped by the Treasury giving up a large part of its ill-gotten gains from privatisation. That is what writing off the debt to the National Loans Fund actually results in.
It is an interesting thought, is it not, that the statutory water companies which will soon become plcs will find themselves, as I understand it, without the benefit of this write-off of their debts—that is, unless I have misunderstood the noble Earl. The Minister accused me of paying attention only to the assets and not to the debts. I can assure him that discussion of the debts is the subject of further amendments. Moreover, I certainly have much to say on that subject before the Committee rises tonight. I welcome the sharing of benefits of surplus land disposal.
The fundamental conclusion that I draw must be the reaction that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. In so far as we are proceeding with privatisation, and the benefit is not going to the Treasury but to the succcessor companies, the new privatised water undertakings, we have reached the nadir of privatisation. We are now not selling off public assets, we are giving them away. If the taxpayers do not benefit and the money goes by a

109
write-off to the private companies, then what is the purpose of privatisation? It has become an ideological nightmare and it has no economic justification whatsoever.
Let us look at the figures. The present day net value of the assets transferred to the authorities under the 1973 Act, free of the debt of £2·2 billion which was transferred, is £12·4 billion. The expected income to the Treasury from the sale of the water industry is expected to be £5 billion to £7 billion. The debt of the water authorities is £5·5 billion. What is left of any benefit to the taxpayer? What is left of any benefit to the Treasury?
I think that noble Lords should ask themselves, when they see these concessions, what is now happening following the privatisation procedures. This is something which no longer bears any semblance of a relationship to economic rationality. If it were not so late at night, we should do something about these amendments, I can assure you.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that a good part of the massive loan debt that would have been bequeathed to the new plcs was inherited in the 1973 transfer, and that freeing up the necessity to service that considerable debt will be a direct benefit to the customer? While the plcs are obliged to service this massive debt the calls on any other moneys, either to improve services or to give a better service to the public, will be impaired. It seems to me that, possibly more indirectly for the noble Lord opposite, there will be a direct impact on the cost of services to the public and the ability of the plcs to meet the obligation to improve services to the customer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are in Committee and it would be as well if the noble Baroness were to make her own speeches rather than intervening in mine. However, she has got the figures totally wrong. We have looked very closely at the balance between the debts and the assets of the regional water authorities. The debts of the regional water authorities amount to approaching 50 per cent. of their assets. I will come on to this when we discuss later amendments.
I have already given the figures concerned with this group of amendments, which confound the argument that the noble Baroness is putting forward. Net of the £2·2 billion which was owed by the transferred business in 1973, net of the value of the assets transferred from the local authorities perforce without payment in 1973, the debt is now £12·4 billion.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his response to our amendment. It is a somewhat involved situation. The amendment was partially factual and partial probing. My noble friend has substantially met the purposes for which we moved our amendment. I did not expect the amendment to be accepted in the form in which I put it down, but his concept of how the new plcs would have to be financed appeals to
110
me. Although I understand the political and philosophical objection of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to it, I think it is worth making this point. I would entirely agree with him that it is a very peculiar privatisation. However, if the water industry were not being privatised there is no doubt whatsoever that the government of the day would have to finance the capital expenditure of the industry on a large scale in order to avoid excessively high increases in charges.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, and I should like to confirm that we are not unaware of this point. As he may know, my honourable friend Mrs. Ann Taylor, who is our spokesman on water, has made her estimate, which seems to be fairly well accepted, that the cost of putting matters right in the water and sewerage industry could be of the order of £12 billion, which would have to fall on the taxpayer. We are not making these statements in ignorance. However, we feel that these are public responsibilities and that, once the public has paid to do what is right to put matters in order again as concerns both water quality and sewerage, the assets which remain, which will be net assets, should stay in the hands of the public sector. That is the fundamental difference between us.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but I thought it needed to be said that in any event the Government—in other words, the taxpayer—would have to finance the huge capital programme which is now needed. It is a matter of opinion, different on each side, as to whether that can be done better and with more benefit to the public by financing from the private sector and the private market or from the public sector.
I should also like to thank by noble friend for his concept of the benefit of the sale of the very large land assets, especially the development value assets, and that at least 50 per cent. should accrue to the benefit of the customer. That seems to me to be entirely right, as also does his concept of the extinction of the debt. Clearly, he and his right honourable friend had always considered that they were going to do this because that was why they drafted Clause 83 in the way they did. So I give my noble friend the credit for having foreseen before my amendment ever appeared on the Order Paper that something of the kind was always going to have to be done.
With regard to the question of local authorities, I very much sympathise with the local authorities which are preparing to fight a legal battle. I hope that they will see that what is being done here will benefit their ratepayers and, indeed, everybody throughout the country in terms of charges. Their legal battle is not going to be easy, as they must well know, so perhaps they will recognise that there is something for them to gain here and they will decide to settle for that.

111
I conclude by thanking our noble friend for his handsome concession to our amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 358 to 359A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 360:
Page 91, line 18, leave out ("Consolidated Fund") and insert ("Water Development Fund established by section (water development fund) below").
The noble Lord said: I have to be very brief because we have just had to close on a 40-minute debate on the issue which concerns the amendment which I am proposing. The variation which we are putting forward proposes that the Water Development Fund should be in the hands of the NRA and then distributed to the various water companies, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a little because I did not speak in the last debate.
It seems to me absolutely criminal that we are adding to the cost of the water companies by an enormous amount by the very act of privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned the figure of 27 per cent. On television last Sunday week a professor at Nottingham University suggested that the whole process of privatisation added as much as 50 per cent. to the cost. Who knows what has been spent up to this moment on advertising? We have been told that something like £30 million has been committed on that. So really the whole act of privatisation is adding to the cost. Again, only this Sunday both the Sunday Times and the Observer and no doubt other papers mentioned that additional costs will fall on the successor authorities, particularly with regard to lead piping, among other things. There will be an enormous bill.
There is only one consolation, which has not been raised before. I understand that quite a lot of the water companies have high assets held in reserve. I stand to be corrected but I have been told that the Yorkshire Water Authority has had reserves of over £85 million since 1983 and currently it has £320 to £400 million as retained profits and reserves. Apparently this was being held back because the authority expected that Part II of the Control of Pollution Act would be implemented much earlier. I do not know whether the Minister may wish to respond on that point. Some water authorities may well be holding high assets and perhaps that is something to set against what will happen in the future.
In his Second Reading speech, my noble friend Lord Ezra referred to the need for a water development fund. That is why we drew up new Clause 80. After the earlier debate I do not wish to press the amendment now: no doubt it will be found to have many holes in it when the Minister comes to respond. I do not expect a lengthy reply, but something must be done.
Part of the proposal has been realised by the Minister in his response today, and he commented briefly on the amendment which the Government will put down to Clause 8. I am not sure that I
112
entirely like the outline of his amendment. Perhaps it will look better when it appears on the Order Paper. I hope that it will deal with environmental problems and not just the sale of assets, which will fall to the authorities. That must be right but I hope to goodness that we shall not have too many sales. We are all frightened to death of that and it was the subject of the earlier argument on the Bill.
Whatever money can be set aside to assist the successor plcs to deal with the enormous problems which will face them is very necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who has just spoken, talked about the situation in South Wales and not knowing where some of the raw sewage outlets are. I have already referred to some of those which I know about. I shall never forget, some years ago, taking an appeal for a housing development. The objection of the planning authority was that it would add to the burden on the sewers, which just could not take any more effluent from the new houses which would be built. I telephoned the local borough surveyor and asked whether he could confirm or deny that. He said that there were so many raw sewage outlets that another 20 houses would not matter a damn. That was only 10 years ago. Fortunately, money has been spent to deal with that situation but I have no doubt that the same thing obtains in many areas of the country and it is an enormous problem.
Perhaps I may finish by saying that I do not expect any support from my noble friend—I call him my friend—on the Labour Front Bench. I agree with him basically that this is a fallback situation. Presumably the Bill will become law. I bitterly regret it. I believe that it is wrong, we shall live to regret it and that the Government will ultimately live to regret it. I believe passionately that this money was largely spent by ratepayers in years gone by. Yes, there have been government grants and probably many more recently. The evidence has been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the old days and the ratepayers of Birmingham. A great deal of ratepayers' money was spent building up our sewerage and water systems over the years, and very proud we were of them too—rightly so. It seems to me to be wrong that the systems should now be privatised. I always thought that the TSB privatisation was robbery and I think this is too. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: I very readily accept the description which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, gave when he said that the amendments were a fallback position. It seems to me, however, that they have probably been very effectively superseded even in the noble Lord's own mind by the statement made by my noble friend on the Front Bench about 20 minutes ago. It appears to me that the rules of the contest at the moment have been slightly changed and that therefore we have to recalculate the sums. As I understand it, the proposals put forward by my noble friend represent one of the possible solutions to a problem which it appears some Members of the Committee do not wish to consider. That problem is that one way or another some billions of pounds will have to be found in the future.

113
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, just outlined the view that one alternative was for the Government to loan the money and put it forward. No doubt that would be his preferred solution. Another solution is the suggestion that is at present under discussion in these amendments. Another is more on the lines of the solution put forward by my noble friend. It is the secondary benefits rather than the readjustment of the structure of the capital which will probably decide which solution will be the better one.
I, unlike the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, do not believe that the local authorities are necessarily the losers. I accept that they lost in 1973. However, a large amount of that loss which the noble Lord attributes to ratepayers' money was taxpayers' money. We are still talking today, in 1989, about taxpayers' money. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I assume from his last remarks the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would go along with this. Again it is taxpayers' money, through some form of government loan, which should be put forward to meet the huge charges which will arise as a result of the need to improve quality, service and water and deal with the pollution of rivers and other matters.
There are, however, other possibilities. One of the difficulties of taking these straight lines is that either one perpetuates the situation of annual subsidy from public money, which we do not wish to recommend, or one has to decide that the alternative to taxpayers' money and to subsidies being pumped into this industry almost indefinitely is to raise the sums needed by means of restructured capital and smaller rises in prices. I repeat the caveat that one would have to see what the specific proposals are in the government amendment that my noble friend has mentioned. However, my main point is that, as I understand it, these amendments are now slightly out of date in the sense that they will probably be superseded by what comes next.
Lord Ross of Newport: I prefaced my remarks by saying rather what the noble Lord has just concluded. However, I shall certainly want to read what the Minister has to say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, is a loyal supporter of the Government, but he has been left somewhat beached by the changed attitude which they have expressed. That has meant that he has totally failed to understand the thrust of what I was trying to say. That is undoubtedly my fault. The point I am trying to make, which is one that Members opposite do not appear to be able to grasp, is that there is such a thing as public investment and public service for a public service. If we are talking about public investment, as we undoubtedly are, whether or not it is in the form of giving public money to the successor undertakings, as that is what writing off a debt means, the investment has to be made however it is done. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, correctly made.
But having made the public investment with public money, whether that is taxpayers' money or ratepayers' money—it does not make any difference
114
from that point of view—what is absolutely unacceptable is that we should then hand over the revitalised asset for private profit. That is what sticks in our throat and what we cannot stand. As I said earlier, if we object to selling off the water industry, the Chamber should consider how much more we object to the proposal which is made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, now—in effect to give away the water industry. That constitutes feathering the nest before the cuckoo gets into it.
Lord Trafford: I did not misunderstand the noble Lord's argument at all. I know his argument about public investment and public service. I do not particularly wish to prolong this debate. However, I must say that I conceded this very point. I recognise where the noble Lord stands on this matter. I also recognise that one of the great difficulties is that so long as one depends upon public investment the same situation will occur with water as has occurred previously—a 50 per cent. cut in that so-called investment. That is what happened in the late 1970s, for all sorts of no doubt at the time excellent reasons such as economic pressures. I do not wish to make a specific party point on the matter; but it is a fact that that is what has happened in public investment in this particular public service. Therefore one has to look at other solutions to the problem.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord that he has consistently held to that point of view. The fact that I do not agree that it is the right point of view does not make me a loyal supporter of the Government; it makes me a chap who disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the basis of those arguments, the noble Lord ought to have followed us into the Lobby last Monday when we secured that there would be a reasonable and rational timetable for investment to improve drinking water quality. I am sorry to see that he did not.
Baroness Blatch: I am concerned with the practicalities of the issue. According to Amendment No. 361 the NRA would have a water development fund which it would then dispense to the water plcs for particular projects. The amendment appears to ignore the fact that flotation proceeds from authorities, some large, some small, will differ, as will the needs of those authorities. Sometimes the needs will be disproportionate to the flotation proceeds. It appears that those particular aspects have not been taken into account in the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would also divert proceeds from the Consolidated Fund, but in this case they would be used to set up a water development fund which would be managed by the National Rivers Authority to fund grants to water and sewerage undertakers and local authorities for a range of purposes associated with sewage treatment and disposal, water treatment, works to achieve minimum acceptable flows and remedying of pollution from abandoned mines.

115
That is just as much of an intervention in the Chancellor's control of the taxpayers' money as the previous group of amendments. Indeed the effect would be to divert the whole of the proceeds of flotation, notwithstanding the debt that has been extinguished before those securities are offered for sale, to fund the proposed new water development fund. It would be unusual for the other place to devote a specific but as yet unknown amount of taxpayers' money to set up a grant fund. It would be all the more exceptional for this Chamber to do so.
The amendment would give the authority a new, and I believe an inappropriate, role in the financial affairs of the privatised industry and in matters relating to drinking water quality. It would require the authority to run a grant regime, with all the work that that entails in checking the appropriateness of costs, and the regularity and propriety of claims and payments. Staff would be needed with expertise in a wider range of matters than the authority has at present to involve itself in, in particular those relating to the clean water side and the distribution side of the water undertakers' functions. This would be a major distraction from environmental work.
In so far as they relate to pollution, the payment of grants for anti-pollution works would mean that the taxpayer rather than the polluter pays. The more I thought about this, the more I thought that something did not chime quite right, and of course it does not. It occurred to me that it was Amendment No. 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that was designed specifically to make the polluter pay. That is a totally different proposition from that which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is now putting forward, which is that there should be a grant system.
116
By charging its domestic and industrial customers for sewerage services, including environmentally acceptable treatment and disposal of effluent, the industry is implementing the polluter pays principle.
We shall all benefit from a cleaner environment, but that is not in itself an argument for funding the industry's clean-up programmes at the taxpayers' expense. We all create pollution; we all benefit from sewerage services. There is no reason why we should not pay for their costs, and we believe it is best that those costs should fall as charges for the services provided.
Lord Ross of Newport: I shall not delay the Committee for more than a minute or two longer. I think that we are in some difficulty in any event since we do not know how the Government will put through their privatisation. Will they privatise the full 100 per cent. or 49 per cent. or 51 per cent? Will they split it up into different authorities? I do not know, and I hope that some day we shall find out.
I recognise the condemnation of some of the terms of the amendment. I accept those criticisms. I believe that the polluter should pay. But at least it was an attempt to seek some way in which money can be found. I believe that noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber agree that that money must be spent over the next three or four years to improve the situation in this country. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 361 not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Transfer of successor company liabilities to holding companies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 361 A:
Page 92, line 20, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 361B. In reference to an earlier amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, accused me of looking only at the assets and not paying attention to the debts. I do not think that he can at that time have remembered that we had put down these amendments, which seek to deal with the real problem that the Government face in their privatisation proposals arising from the very variable debt obligations of the different water authorities.
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will have the ability to juggle with the finances of the regional water authorities and their successor companies. He will have the ability to create a totally artificial balance sheet in order to prepare those companies for privatisation. It is nothing to do with what they have spent or with the condition of the business that they inherit. It is nothing to do with the efficiency or inefficiency of their operations in the past. It is simply to do with the fact that, as things stand and with the debt structure of the regional water authorities as it is, those businesses are simply not capable of being privatised. The Government could not privatise the water industry without restructuring the debt.
Members of the Committee may think that I am exaggerating or joking; that is not the case. The regional water authorities had £5·5 billion of debt at the end of 1987–88. It may be more by now, but that is the most recent published figure. It represents 45 per cent. of the historic cost asset value. It represents about 50 per cent. of what analysts expect will be raised from the sale. It would not matter so much if the debt were distributed among the water authorities, but that is not the case. The Thames Water Authority has a debt of only 12 per cent. of its historic cost asset value. The Northumbrian Water Authority has a debt of 62 per cent. of its historic cost asset value.
Anyone who thinks about investing in a water authority or any other business knows that if its debts account for more than 45 per cent. on average and, in many cases, more than that, it will not be able to undertake significant amounts of investment without doing so from retained profits. In other words, there is nothing left for the shareholders in any of the regional water authorities or their successor companies, with the possible exception of the Thames Water Authority. The next in line is probably the South-West Water Authority with 29 per cent. of its asset value in debts.
Unless the Government play totally artificial games with their historic debts, acknowledging no relation whatsoever with the efficiency of the companies, their economics, their costs of production or anything else, they will simply not be able to privatise the water business. That is why they
118
give the Secretary of State the freedom to play ducks and drakes and to shuffle the debt around between the successor companies.
As I said earlier, we have reached the nadir of economic rationale when we come to this privatisation proposal. We have now shown that in one further respect privatisation of the water industry is an economic nonsense. It can only be achieved by skulduggery with the figures. It cannot be described in any other way. That is what is proposed, and that is what our amendment would get rid of. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I must admit that I found it difficult when reading this amendment to know what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, intended to convey by the phrase "net liabilities of any company". I wondered whether he meant that the value of debt in loan stock and other fixed interest forms should not be increased or whether he meant that the value of such debt taken with the value of equity should together not be increased. I regret to tell him that I must confess to still not being clear about his intention.
Amendment No. 361B, which is the substantive amendment of the two amendments that we are considering, deals only with the transfer of liabilities between the successor company and its nominated holding company. I can assure the noble Lord that, because we should not want the group of companies to start in a disadvantageous tax position, we shall specifically avoid increasing the debt that the successor company owes to its nominated holding company beyond the level of debt owed by the nominated holding company.
While on the question of debt, it may be worth clarifying a point that I made earlier which, with respect, I think that the noble Lord may have misinterpreted. When I said that he only talked about assets and refused to acknowledge that there was a debt, I was of course talking about the situation in 1973.I did know that these amendments on debt were to come before us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl seeks to attack these amendments by suggesting that we have not appreciated the difference between one water authority and another. The problem which the Government have is that this is not simply a write-off of debt. If that were the case, we could disagree with them but we could also understand how they could reach that position. What is proposed here is a complete freedom for the Secretary of State not just to write off debts but to write in debts. That would be the situation of the consumers of Thames Water. The people who live in the Thames Water Authority area have paid for their assets once. They are now being asked to pay for them again so that the City can be given a big enough price for the other water authorities, which are not in that happy position, to go ahead.
Why otherwise is it proposed that the shares of all the water authorities together should be sold on day

119
1 in a bundle with investors having no choice as to which of the authorities they are buying into, and only on day 2 is there to be a market in the shares of the individual water supply plcs?
The answer is that the Government know very well that, with the possible exception of Thames Water Authority, and with the proviso that the Government are now making further concessions to ensure that receipts to the Treasury are reduced by writing off loans to the national loan fund, these water businesses are not saleable. They are not privatisable. That is true not only because of their physical condition but because of the obligations toward the consumers and the environment which are now belatedly being recognised by the Government.
All these matters will have to be dealt with at another stage. This is clearly not the time to pursue the issue and take the view of the Committee. I am delighted to give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord and particularly for his further explanation of the amendments. It helps me to a certain extent, and therefore allows me to say a little more. I think that it is worth repeating a point that I made earlier; namely, that debt write-off in the run-up to flotation is well precedented in other privatisations. The noble Lord seems to indicate that we are proposing something quite new. It is a well precedented measure. It is part of the process of putting in place new capital structures appropriate for the company to be floated. The assets of the national loans fund will be reduced accordingly but the Government will have new assets in the form of equity and debt security in the WS plcs. In all cases equity will have to be increased because there is none now. In some cases debt will be reduced and in others debt may be increased.
The important point to bear in mind is that it is the combination of debt and equity that is to be sold. An increase of debt may be the best means of maximising the return to taxpayers.
The noble Lord suggested in that second intervention—which has helped me in particular with reference to Thames Water Authority—that if the debt is increased, the customers will have to pay twice over, once because they have paid already by the higher charges needed to amortise the debt written off in the past and once again in the future for the new debt created. That is simply not so. Even in the public sector, companies or other reorganisations are expected to pay a return on capital and to repay loans to them. Not to require a return is simply to invite a waste of resources. Whether the customer is paying so that the debt is serviced or paying so that a combination of less debt but with some equity is serviced would make little difference to the customer for two reasons. First, the Bill provides safeguards for the customers through the general duties imposed by Clause 7 on the Secretary of State and director. I refer Members of the Committee in particular to Clause 7(3).
120
Secondly, the charges will be controlled by the price formula in the conditions of appointment.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that my second intervention gave the Minister an opportunity to repeat some of the words that he used in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I was in no doubt as to what he meant. I had no doubt that he meant, as he has now confirmed, that the debt structure of the water authorities is to be reorganised so that some of them will benefit and some will lose. Clearly one that will lose is Thames Water Authority. It is useful to have the Minister's confirmation of that.
However, he has not shown in any way that the changes that are taking place have any business logic or economic rationale or are related in any way to the operations, the historical costs or the asset structure of the businesses. It is simply an artificial balance sheet that is being created solely for the purpose of privatisation. If one adds to that, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, the huge costs to the taxpayer and the consumers of the privatisation process, we realise that economic logic and thinking have gone mad in these amendments.
As I indicated, we shall be forced to return to this issue because it is absolutely fundamental to the concept of privatisation. We are revealing in this series of amendments and in the probing that is taking place in this Chamber that privatisation is nonsense for the water industry. It is no good the Minister saying to me that this is the first time that debts have been written off. That may be a criticism of earlier privatisation. It is certainly not a defence of this privatisation. The whole business structure of the privatisation proposals is crumbling about the Government's ears. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 361B not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Conversion of certain loans]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 361C:
Page 92, line 41, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out his current expectation of the contents of any order to be made under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I hope that I may give the Government an opportunity to go a little further in the exercise of the glasnost that we have had in the last hour and a half or so. The amendment proposes that within a month of the passing of the Act the Secretary of State should:
"lay before Parliament a report setting out his current expectation of the contents of any order to be made under subsection (1)".
Subsection (1), as the Committee will recall, allows the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to

121
extinguish all or any of the liabilities of the nominated holding company. I remind the Committee that we are dealing here with a business which has assets of £11 billion and debts of £5·5 billion. In other words, we have a gearing ratio which can only find its investment funds from retained profits in the private sector, into which it is being catapulted. We have an industry which is simply incapable of surviving without artificial financial protection. In the last hour and a half we have had confirmation from the Government that they propose to provide, at the taxpayers' expense, at the expense of the National Loans Fund, our money, that degree of financial protection for the privatised water industry which is necessary for the privatisation to go ahead. They do not care how much the taxpayer gets. They do not care how much the consumer pays. All they care about is that there should be this privatisation, come hell or high water.
How much is it now proposed will be written off? In responding a few minutes ago, the Minister gave us some idea of the impact on the National Loans Fund, but all he said when talking about the figures was that it would be offset by the value of the equity. How much will be written off? How much will it cost the taxpayer to make the phoney privatisation possible? What the amendment asks for, and it is the least we can demand, is that Parliament should know before the privatisation goes ahead. Is that so unreasonable? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am always happy to try to help the noble Lord. I am grateful that he has found this evening rewarding from that point of view. While there is no intention of concealing our proposals in respect of debt extinguishment, I have to tell him that the amendment is not practicable. The provision to extinguish debt is necessary to adjust company structure prior to flotation in order to achieve a successful flotation and in order to give money back to those who paid for the water services in the first place. The necessary decisions will not therefore be made as soon as the amendment suggests, but I assure the noble Lord that it will be done immediately before flotation so that the adjustments may reflect circumstances at that time. I put it to him that that is the appropriate time to make these adjustments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is gobbledegook. It is simply avoiding the issue which these amendments pose. The amendments suggest that Parliament has a right to know. What the Minister is saying in all sincerity is that there is no possibility of sharing with Parliament what the Government must know, because the Government are proceeding apace with all the negotiations, certainly on the pricing structure and no doubt on all the other aspects of the prospectus which has to be put into place before privatisation can proceed. We must find some way for Parliament to take part in the process of privatisation. If we accept the Government's object in proceeding to privatisation by November of this year, it cannot be done. I do not know how I can express this. It cannot constitutionally be done with all the important issues left out of the Bill and
122
left to be decided by the Secretary of State after Royal Assent has been given. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
Modestly we say in this amendment that on a particular matter which cannot be beyond the knowledge of government the Secretary of State should report to Parliament after the passing of the Bill. We are not saying that the passing of the Bill should be delayed or that anything else should be done except that Parliament should have an opportunity to debate these vital issues of privatisation. I cannot see how in all faith the Government can maintain parliamentary democracy when they refuse to share with Parliament all these vital aspects of privatisation.
When I go through the procedures, I sometimes feel that we are wasting our time. I feel that we are not being taken into the Government's confidence, and they do not propose that Parliament should have any real influence on the progress of the Bill. I feel that we are left with dogma and asseveration rather than argument and democratic discussion. It is a disgrace that the Committee should be treated in this way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 361D:
Page 95, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will note that in the margin at Clause 86 are the words:
"Target investment limit for Government shareholding".
The amendment seeks to delete subsection (5)(a) which appears at the top of page 95 of the Bill. Clause 86 provides for the setting and attainment of target investment limits for the Government of shareholdings with voting rights following privatisation. As currently provided for, that limit would initially be set at the level of shares which the Government did not sell at the time of the flotation.
The Minister admitted to a House of Commons Standing Committee that the initial shareholding may be as high as 49 per cent. of the total shares in the industry. Such is the financial mess the Government have got themselves into—as has been amply demonstrated in the debates—that they do not know what their initial shareholding will be. It is a subject that I suggest the Committee should stay with for a little longer.
After flotation the Secretary of State will be able to lower the limit as and when he is willing, or more likely able, to bring successive tranches of shares on to the market. However, at no time will the Secretary of State be able to increase the target investment limit by more than one-half of one per cent. of that originally established. Therefore, the Bill as it stands has built into its provisions the prevention of

123
increased state control of the industry at some future date. I ask the blunt question: why should that be? Clearly, the Secretary of State has no more confidence in the Government's ability to stay in power than have the electors in Glamorgan, for instance. Otherwise, why is it so necessary to build into the legislation provisions intended to stop a future Labour Government from re-establishing state control of the industry by simply buying up the shares of the WS plcs on the open market, or through greater voting rights being attached to state-held shares? Clearly Clause 86 is intended to achieve that.
I presume that the Secretary of State believes that the provisions of this clause will in some way reassure investors that their shareholdings are secure and that the industry cannot be brought back under state control. If that is the case, it is to be hoped that prospective shareholders are not nearly as naive as the Secretary of State. For surely they will realise—as would any reasonably aware person—that, the provisions of the Bill notwithstanding, a future Labour Government will as soon as possible after their election proceed with all the moves necessary to take the water industry back into public control under the accountable and democratic control of locally elected representatives.
The effect of the amendment would be to remove the bar to returning the industry to public control. I suggest that the purpose of the amendment is clear to see. It is to make a categorical commitment to those foolish and gullible enough to buy into the industry that their investment should not be seen as a means of reaping monopoly profits in the long term, and that upon the election of a Labour Government the control over their investment will be forfeit. However, even if that were not to be so, surely potential investors would be aware, even if the Secretary of State is not, that the effects of the Bill could be altered to a considerable degree by issuing instructions to the director to so alter his mode of regulation of the industry as to reform its structure from one based on plc lines to one which would give greater protection to the consumers and the environment.
Therefore, were there to be some delay in a future Labour Government bringing forward the primary legislation necessary to return the industry to public control, there would be no such delay in reforming the industry so as to guarantee its operation along lines more acceptable, even if not totally acceptable, than those upon which it is intended to operate this Bill.
I believe that we are moving, as we have in the two earlier debates, into the whole raison d'être of the Bill as regards not only the Government but also a great many other interests. The Minister must be aware that the City is not altogether happy with the saleability of the shares or with a number of other matters. First, there is the continuing threat of the imposition of EC water purity standards which would place a heavy burden of investment requirements on the industry and so postpone indefinitely the period when profits can be reaped by shareholders instead of being ploughed back into the business. That threat could give shares in the
124
industry a very low yield in the medium term and thus make them an unattractive proposition.
Secondly, there is the continuing threat of the EC intervening to prevent the creation of the level playing field necessary to enable the WS plcs to compete in the capital market following privatisation. Thirdly, there is the increasing concern in the City that parts of the industry may not be the Government's to sell in the first place. While those fears have not yet been fully expressed, it is no coincidence that in the past few weeks a number of Fleet Street City editors have been making discreet inquiries about possible legal moves over assets transferred to the water authorities in 1973.
Perhaps more importantly, there is a widespread feeling in the City that water privatisation is basically very uninteresting, that the industry has few prospects for sales volume growth, that it is unlikely ever to be at the forefront of technology and that it has few prospects for synergetic symbiosis with other industries—and I shall say that again if I am challenged! There is a case being made to sit on the liquid balances, wait six months and then to go for the quick kill in the electricity flotation.
I believe that all those are aspects of the Government's intention in Clause 86 to try to encourage and reassure those on whom they rely to buy shares and to support them in their objectives. We are seeking to make it quite clear that those who buy and invest in the industry under those terms are warned that under a Labour Government their fingers will be burnt. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before my noble friend answers the details of that speech, there is a general matter which should be clarified or confirmed. Has the noble Lord just announced a new policy of the Labour Party which does not appear in its recently published programme?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that he has, because he said that if potential purchasers of these shares knew that the Labour Party would be buying them back in some form or would be taking them over in the form of nationalisation, they would not buy the shares in the first place. However, that is not as I understood the programme of the Labour Party as it has been announced publicly. I do not understand it to be as suggested at this late hour in an insignificant sort of an amendment to a Bill; namely, that the Labour Party will take back these privatised shares with no compensation and without the proper price being paid. That is what he said. If the industry is taken back into public ownership—if ever the unpleasant time comes when the Labour Party is in a position to do that—there is no threat if shareholders receive the market price. They cannot lose, so there is no deterrent. Therefore, I should like to know whether I have taken the noble Lord's comments differently from what he intended, or has he just announced that the Labour Party will nationalise in some form or another with no compensation being paid for the shares? That is the clear message from his speech.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not blame the noble Lord for trying it on, but he is wide of what my noble friend said. There was no suggestion whatever that the shares should be bought without compensation. That was not said at all. It is clear, however, that the next Labour Government—and we are only two years or so away from the next Labour Government—will be taking urgent steps in the simplest possible way (perhaps in a Bill encapsulating this amendment) to secure that we have a majority shareholding in the water industry. Investors must take that into account and also take into account that when we have taken urgent action to secure public control of the water industry, as the people of this country wish us to do, we will then at more leisure take steps to ensure that we have the final structure of a public water industry that we want. There was never any suggestion in my noble friend's words, and no one could read into his words, that no compensation would be paid.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In that case perhaps we can get this absolutely clear. Do I understand that people can buy shares in the privatised water industry with the full knowledge that they will not lose in regard to value, even if we have the unpleasant experience of a Labour Government coming back? Can we therefore go on safely buying the shares and be sure that the threat made by the noble Lord is quite without foundation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is trying it on again. Nobody can buy shares in any private company with full guarantees that they will not lose money. That is the nature of the gambling den which is called the City of London. That is what it is all about. We are certainly not giving any guarantee of that sort. We are saying that we will take public control of the water industry but will not do so without compensation.
The Earl of Caithness: Clause 86 requires the Secretary of State to set a target investment limit for government shareholding in each nominated holding company of a successor company not later than six months after flotation. The clause allows this limit to be lowered but not raised. That is well precedented in other privatising legislation. The effect of the amendment would allow the limit to be raised.
The amendment provides the means to nationalise the water industry by buying shares in the market without the requirement for primary legislation. Is that democracy? What an abuse of Parliament that is by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The noble Lord castigated us on the previous amendment. He wound up with sound and fury. However, his fury is nothing compared to the fury that he would generate if we were to try to privatise the water industry without primary legislation. The noble Lord is, however, quite happy to nationalise without primary legislation.
During consideration of this Bill we on this side of the Committee have been puzzled by statements about Labour Party policy on ownership of the water industry. I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that we are even more interested
126
by what seems to be a continual shifting sand of policy. We are all eager to learn more about the unfolding story of the position of the party opposite on this issue. Let a little glasnost get into the Labour Party's ideas; let that party be a bit more open with the electorate because, if it is, the Labour Party knows very well that it will not be in two years' time that we have a Labour Government—oh no, electors are far too wise to fall into that trap.
I take the Committee back to an authoritative leak in The Times in April from which we learnt that a draft Labour Party policy document would not commit the Labour Party to taking the water industry back into public ownership. That is very good stuff. But no, the noble Lord's honourable friend, Dr. Cunningham, had not been let in on that leak, and he hotly denied it when it came to Third Reading. He would have nothing to do with it and he did not believe it.
When we discussed amendments earlier in Committee, my noble friend Lord Beloff sought clarification. That was on 4th May A doubt had again opened up as to whether the intention was public control or public ownership. What is it to be? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that it would all rather depend on how the Bill turned out. He said that they could not give the precise prescription. Now that he has cogitated a little more I wonder whether he can give the precise prescription. Is it to be public control or public ownership? We have seen a little more. We have heard recently of competing for prosperity, but that does not help us. It is the biggest fudge of all. It is suggested that water will be returned to public ownership but not as a priority.
I am not quite sure whether the Labour Party considers it a resolution of its dilemma but it should be ashamed of the principle that lies behind this amendment; namely, that whether or not its policy will be to renationalise the water industry, it would prefer the Bill to be so drafted that it would not require an Act of Parliament to implement that decision. That is entirely unacceptable.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I confess that perhaps I started this sharpening of the debate. I offer no apology. The weapons at the hands of the Opposition are very limited indeed. At the moment we are not discussing what a future Labour government will do; we are discussing what it is that this Government intend to do on the face of this Bill. We are looking for ways of setting out our stall, reaffirming or reminding the Committee what our policy is and why and how it has changed. At the moment we are concerned to see how, by amendment, substitution, addition or insertion, words can be brought into the Bill.
We have sought to demonstrate that the Government are determined to provide the best possible face and case to the investor as to why it is good business to invest in the proposed companies. We are saying that if the Bill is in such shape and condition and of such colour as to be attractive to the investor, then if there is a Labour government we believe that water should be under the control of the government and their agencies. It is not

127
ownership. I shall be delighted—if the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, wishes—to engage, as I have done previously, in arguments of public, private, pseudo and partial changes. At least the Labour Party acknowledges, from a set of precepts which, if not pre-war, go back many years before, the different means whereby it has sought to control the means of distribution and exchange. We have learnt from our experience. We recognise the reality, not least that of the past 10 years, of what this Government have done not merely to investments but also to the shape of our major institutions.
The Minister may have a point as to whether there is sharp practice or not. But the Government must learn that every piece of legislation that they leave on the statute book is capable of being used and/or abused by an incoming government. It is up to the Government. We can use the present legislation; that is why we are seeking to make this amendment. Therefore, if all we have left is this Bill without the amendment, that is a vehicle to allow a Labour government the opportunity to make changes.
All we are trying to do with this amendment is to warn the investing public, so carefully cultivated by the Government, that if they decide to invest in the future of the water industry it may not be as sweet as the Government have tried to paint it. The alternative to that is for us to say nothing. If we get power on the basis that we have said nothing we can suddenly produce plans that will be seen as treachery and heresy.
What my noble friend Lord McIntosh and I have said to the investing public is not new. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for believing that I have either the wit or the authority on the hoof to declare Labour Party policy. I have neither. All I have done is to reaffirm in a form of words which may or may not have been clumsy—I shall read them carefully tomorrow—that it is Labour's intention, given power, to bring the water industry back under public control.
The Minister asks whether it is a first or a second priority. He knows from his experience that priorities in legislation are a complex matter. On this side of the Committee we cannot allow this opportunity to go by and acquiesce in a supine way with what the Government intend to do. We have limited powers. One of the few weapons that we have is the opportunity to make a speech which may or may not see the light of day. However, we are politicians. We have a heart and a voice and we are provoked from time to time—yes, even by words on the face of a Bill.
This has been my opportunity. I can tell the Committee that whatever it has done for noble Lords, I feel a good deal better for it. It has done wonders for me. I shall vote for me next time. I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has helped me to get these things of my chest.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to emphasise something just in case he wants to change his mind.
128
Did I hear him say that he and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have said to the electorate that the next Labour Government wish to take water under public control?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes. The water industry is now leaving public control and is going into private control. That is happening under this Bill. It will be sold off and will be the province of the private investor. I am saying that a Labour government will take steps to return it to a form of public control.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he not realise that his honourable friend Dr. Cunningham has told the electorate that a Labour government will take it back under public ownership and public control?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If half an answer is not sufficient and the Minister wants to quote my honourable friend in another place, whose views I respect, he is entitled to do that. I stand by what I said which does not contradict what my honourable friend said in another place.
The Earl of Caithness: It totally contradicts what the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place has said. The noble Lord wants control. The Labour Party in another place which does not seem to communicate with the Labour Party up here—that is its look out if its members do not talk to one another—wants public ownership and control. That is a different matter. There is of course the question which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls raised. He asked about compensation. It looks as though the Labour Party is up to some of its worst performances tonight.
Baroness Blatch: If the distinction between control and ownership is the securing of more than 51 per cent. of the shares, how will the noble Lord's party select the unsuspecting shareholders from whom they will secure, presumably by compulsory purchase, 51 per cent. of the shares?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All this is immensely flattering. We know that the Government have now accepted the fact that they will go out of office at the next general election and be replaced by a Labour Government. That is fine. Otherwise this intense interest in every word that falls from our lips would not make any sense at all, particularly at this time of the night. It is enormously flattering. However, the Minister and noble Lords opposite live in the real world. They know that we do not prepare a detailed legislative programme in advance of an election and that we do not even prepare a manifesto in advance of an election. The details of what goes into that manifesto are not decided by Opposition spokesman in the shadow chamber of Parliament. Let us not play this game any longer; we are all agreed that the water industry will be a public water industry again within less than three years. That is all we need to know.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether the noble Lord could assist those of us on these Benches; that is, myself and the great crowd who sit behind me? Can he say whether they intend to take the water industry back into public ownership before or after they abolish the House of Lords?
The Earl of Caithness: While the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is thinking of a nice answer to that question, may I ask what really is the point of the policy review?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that all of this is so much water under the bridge. I think that we would all benefit and profit by reading not only what we have said but also the policy review. I say that because if you want to see the future as it will be, then it is written in that document. It would certainly benefit—
The Earl of Caithness: So it is a manifesto!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, I can only repeat what my noble friend said. It is obvious that what a future Labour Government intend to do is a matter of great moment to the outgoing Government who sit on the Benches opposite. As I have already said, it is the job of an opposition to seek to expose points which arouse intense dislike.
We intensely dislike this Bill and that has been made perfectly clear at all stages of the proceedings. However, when it comes to how we intend to redress the position, my noble friend is absolutely right in what he says. First, we on these Benches are spokesmen for the Labour Party but we are not constructors of either a manifesto or of policy statements. There is no dubiety and nothing can be read into what we have said. We have said that we intend to warn off prospective investors—
A Noble Lord: Frighten them off!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, frighten them off, if you will. In fact "frighten" is an even better word and I wish that I had thought of it myself. We intend to frighten off future investors who are being induced to invest in the water industry by means of what the Government have done. They have resisted time after time the proposal to have laid upon the water industry what we believe to be perfectly legitimate protections both for the consumer and for the nation. That has all been done for a purpose; the purpose is to encourage the saleability of the industry.
All we are saying by means of this amendment and others is, "Be very careful"—caveat emptor—before we go too far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 and 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Temporary restrictions on borrowings etc. by the group]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 361E:
Page 98, line 5, at end insert—
("(2A) No borrowing undertaken or outstanding within the limit established under subsection (1) above, (or as varied by the Secretary of State by Order under that subsection) shall be extinguished by the Secretary of State under section 83 above.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to insert on page 98 the words which appear on the Marshalled List:
"No borrowing undertaken or outstanding within the limit established under subsection (1) above, (or as varied by the Secretary of State by Order under that subsection) shall be extinguished by the Secretary of State under section 83 above".
Clause 89 of the Bill is one which I submit has received little attention hitherto. It sets out the temporary borrowing restrictions on the group to which a successor company belongs prior to privatisation and allows the Secretary of State to vary this amount in the national interest. The limitation on borrowing is set at £1,400 million for each holding company to which a successor company belongs but may be raised to £1,800 million if the Secretary of State specifies by statutory instrument that it would be in the national interest to do so.
The effect of the amendment would be to prevent any loans allowed under this section being subsequently written off under the provisions of Clause 83. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to explain the considerations under the heading "National Interest". How would they be taken into account when deciding whether or not such an interest in the borrowing limit should be made? I believe that the Minister can help to clarify this issue and allay concerns about what such borrowing powers may be used for, and what the total amount of increase in borrowing for the industry would be, rather than for a group within the industry.
Let me exemplify the points I am making. The term "national interest" is meaningless. This Government believe that term to be synonymous with their own interests. Unless one were to have an elected dictatorship, it is difficult to see what this might be.
Leaving this unimportant point aside, let us consider what constitutes the national interest, assuming one could agree the definition. Clearly, with the water industry, barring any wartime emergency measure which may be necessary—but hardly likely before flotation day—the national interest involves the health and wellbeing of its population, and therefore the quality of the drinking water. Is that what the Secretary of State means to allow for in this section (bearing in mind the current position of the EC) that loans could be raised prior to flotation to go part way towards complying with the EC drinking water regulation? I think that the Minister should be specific on that point.
Then we have the term, "group to which a successor company belongs". That is ambiguous in that there does not seem to be a clear indication in

131
the Bill of whether the word "group" is synonymous with the term "public sector water industry". In that case there could be only one group. Alternatively, could there be more than one group formed out of the water authorities prior to flotation? That point is important since, if there could be only one group, then the amount that the industry could be allowed to borrow would be £1,400 million, and a further £400 million in the national interest. If there could be more than one group, then the amount the industry could be allowed to borrow would be those amounts times the number of groups. Were there to be 10 such groups, one for each existing water authority, then the true borrowing for industry that the Secretary of State could allow would be £14,000 million, and in the national interest, a further £4 billion.
While the Bill is clearly ambiguous on those points, there is a greater concern to which the amendment is specifically addressed; namely, that while Section 89 makes it clear what borrowing would be allowed to a group, it does not make clear what proportion of that borrowing would be retained as debt equity following privatisation. That is clearly an important matter, given the fears that have been expressed about the amount the taxpayer may have to pay for privatisation in the form of debt write-offs. That is the point that my noble friend Lord McIntosh dealt with at some length.
The need to prevent that happening arises from suspicions which have been voiced about what the clause will be used for. Some time ago the Secretary of State gave a useful hint as to what one should reasonably suspect, and so fuelled these suspicions. He implied that it would be no bad thing for public money to be spent on funding some of the environmental improvements being insisted upon by the EC. On the basis of what is in that clause, and what this Chamber argued last Tuesday, it would seem reasonable to suspect that the Secretary of State might be prepared to bail the industry out in advance of privatisation if water quality standards contained in the EC Directive 80/778 were to be enforced.
Can the Minister tell us whether that is the case? Is the taxpayer about to have to borrow billions of pounds in order to meet EC requirements, and then see this loan written off to enable privatisation to go ahead? The ambiguities clearly allow for that possibility, and I suggest that the amendment would help to prevent that situation. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The aggregate amount of borrowing undertaken by a group of companies to which a successor company belongs is subject to a limit imposed by Clause 89. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent any of that debt, including loans made by the Secretary of State while the company is wholly owned by the Crown, from being extinguished.
I think that there are two reasons why the amendment is unacceptable. Although flotation is planned for November, we cannot be certain that it will not be delayed by unforeseen events. This
132
increases the importance of the flexibility provided in the Bill in making decisions on debt extinguishment. We must be able to put in place an appropriate balance of debt and equity so that the capital structure and share price of the offer reflect the circumstances in the market at the time of flotation. Only in this way can we achieve the best price for the benefit of the taxpayer.
In some cases the market situation may require more debt to be injected. In other circumstances a reduction may be appropriate. We must accordingly be able to move in either direction.
The second reason for not accepting the amendment is that it is contrary to the Government's policy. The national loan fund debt cannot be held by a private sector company. Therefore, there must be scope for its extinguishment in any debt rearrangement or conversion necessary before flotation.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl has not explained what is meant by:
"The aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of the relevant borrowing of a group to which a successor company belongs".
Does he mean that the amount shall not exceed £1,400 million for the whole of the water industry or does he mean £1,400 million for each of what potentially could be a number of different groups?
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the noble Lord will find it clearer in his mind when he looks at subsection (5), which defines "Group".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not.
" 'Group' … means that company's nominated holding company and all of the nominated holding company's subsidiaries".
That means the successor of a water authority. Therefore a group could be the successors of the Thames Water Authority with a borrowing limit of £1,400 million, and there could be a separate group of the Severn and Trent Water Authority, also with a borrowing level of £1,400 million. Subsection (5) does not explain it any more clearly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Surely it is a simple question of whether we are talking about £1,400 million or possibly £14,000 million. In other words, we may have got the multiplication by 10 wrong. But is it the basic figure or is that figure capable of being multiplied?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand it and read it from the Bill in front of me, it is £1,400 million for each group of companies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: So is the Minister confirming that it could be £14 billion if in fact there were 10 groups? Could he confirm that?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We shall read very carefully what the Minister has said when we look

133
at the Official Report tomorrow. Clearly the whole philosophy of the Bill is wrapped up in precisely what we are discussing here. Again I say to the Minister that—and it may be our fault—we have had to ask questions which genuinely we could not read into the words in the Bill. The Minister has not dissembled at all and has given us straight answers, but we have had to ask the questions, and even then we have had to ask further questions on his answers. All I am saying is that there will be people outside the Chamber who will be grateful to the Minister for having expanded on or clarified what the Bill means. We shall look at it tomorrow and may come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Procedure for cancelling resolutions for substituting memorandum and articles]:
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 361F:
Page 107, line 36, leave out ("the resolution to be cancelled") and insert ("an order under subsection (4) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 361 G, 361H and 361 J. The privatisation of the water industry and the procedures for enabling statutory water companies to become plcs are unprecedented, as has been stated so many times in the proceedings on the Bill.
I hope that this will not delay the Committee long. The four amendments to Clause 99 have the aim of removing the possibility of damaging and long delays being occasioned to the procedures by minority shareholders in cases where, in any event, the overwhelming majority of shareholders have already given approval to the proposals. The amendments would enable the High Court to provide compensation to a dissentient minority if the High Court thinks that the minority have in any way been disadvantaged.
The amendment to page 107, line 40, is technical and prevents minorities from a class applying to the High Court. That class's approval does not need to be obtained in any event under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments relate to the provisions in Clause 99, under which shareholders who object to a statutory water company's resolution to replace its constitution with a new memorandum and articles can apply to the courts to have the resolution cancelled. One amendment would restrict rights of access to the courts in these circumstances. The other three would remove the power of the courts to cancel the resolution and would substitute a discretionary power to award cash compenstion for the diminution in value of those members' interests.
Perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lord Elliott that we shall consider most carefully all that he has said. I undertake that the Government will table amendments on Report to bring the rights awarded
134
to minorities to have access to the courts more closely into line with the Companies Act. I shall also consider what he has said about the proposed restrictions on the powers of the court when the application is made. However, I am not yet persuaded whether it is appropriate for the powers of the courts to be restricted in this way on the point. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elliott will see fit to withdraw the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord responds, I am opposed to the amendments which he has put forward, and also to the Government's response. Has the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, considered that the statutory water companies, to which he is so devoted and to which he has given such distinguished service, will be defrauded by the proposals of the Government announced this evening?
What is now being proposed is that the loans to the water authorities—in other words, the suppliers of 75 per cent. of the country's water supply—will now be written off in the form of the write-off of the loans to the National Loans Fund. That will not be the case for the 25 per cent. of water consumers who are the customers of the statutory water companies. While the noble Lord is taking away what the Government said and thinking about it for the next stage, will he consider standing up for the rights of the statutory water companies and their customers against this totally unfair discrimination against them which has been announced by the Government tonight?
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his comments. I repeat what I have said at various stages of the Bill, starting with the Second Reading debate, through several amendments. I hope that anything in the shape of write-off or dowry will apply to 100 per cent. of consumers and not just 75 per cent.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in responding to the amendment to which he has referred. I shall take very careful note of it in the record tomorrow and bear it very much in mind. I thank my noble friend for his response to the amendments. I take full note that the Government will come back to them with their own amendments on Report. In consequence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 361G, 361H and 361J not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 361K:
After Clause 99, insert the following new clause:
("Replacement of borrowing powers of registered water companies.
.—(1) Where—

(a) provision relating to borrowed monies of a registered water company is for the time being contained in local statutory provisions; and

(b) the company for the time being holds an appointment under Chapter 1 of this Part,

that company may subject to the following provisions of this section by special resolution propose that those local statutory provisions shall cease to have effect.
(2) If the Secretary of State by order approves a proposal by a registered water company in accordance with subsection (1) above, the local statutory provisions in question shall cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above in relation to a registered water company unless it appears to him—

(a) that neither an application under section (procedure for replacing borrowing powers) below with respect to the company's proposal nor an appeal with respect to the subject-matter of such an application is pending and that the time within which any such application or appeal may be made or brought has expired; and

(b) where there is—

(i) a division of the mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of the company into different classes; and

(ii) that the local statutory provisions which are to cease to have effect will be replaced by other provisions which will replace, vary, modify, compromise or release the rights attached to any sach class or by obligations to repay or redeem the said mortgages, debentures or debenture stock,

that a consent to or approval to such proposal has been given approval to such proposal has been given under subsection (4) below in respect of each class the rights attached to which would be so replaced, varied, modified, compromised or released if the order were made.
(4) A consent or approval of a proposal is given for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above in respect of a class of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock if—

(a) consent in writing to the proposal has been given by the holders of not less than three-quarters, in nominal value, of the issued mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of that class; or

(b) an extraordinary resolution approving the proposal is passed at a separate general meeting of the holders of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of that class;

and for the purpose of determining whether the requirements specified in subsection (3)(b) above are satisfied in relation to any two or more classes of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock in a registered water company, it shall be immaterial that consents and approvals have been given in respect of different classes in accordance with different paragraphs of this subsection.
(5) The provisions of the company's registered memorandum and articles (in the case of a registered water company) or the provisions of Table A as prescribed by regulations having effect under section 8 of the Companies Act 1985 (in the case of a statutory water company not registered under Chapter II of Part XXII of the said Act of 1985) shall extend mutatis mutandis for the purpose of convening and regulating separate general meetings of holders of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock and the passing of extraordinary resolutions thereat as if the said holders were members of the company and the meetings were meetings of the company.
(6) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (2) above in relation to any company and it appears to him to be appropriate to do so for the purposes of, or in consequence of, the approval contained in the order, he may by order repeal or amend any local statutory provision.
(7) The power to make an order under subsection (2) or (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and an order under subsection (6) above may—

(a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons or circumstances; and

(b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(8) In this section and section (procedure for replacing borrowing powers) below—
"debenture" and "extraordinary resolution" have the same respective meanings as in the Companies Act 1985;
"registered water company" means any statutory water company to which a certificate under section 688 of that Act has been issued (whether before or after the transfer date).").
The noble Lord said: Clauses 98 and 99 deal with the procedure for enabling statutory water companies to become plcs and do not address the problems as to what should happen thereafter to their borrowings. Having adopted a memorandum and articles of association, certain legislation passed as long ago as 1845 and 1863 would continue to govern their borrowings and the rights of lenders. This cannot be a satisfactory position for a public limited company under the Companies Act of 1985. These new clauses provide a procedure whereby, with the approval of the lenders and that of the Secretary of State, new arrangements can be introduced which will then allow the old statutory provisions to be repealed. The new clauses are based upon the provisions of Clauses 98 and 99, which deal with the adoption of a memorandum and articles of association. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 361K and 361L would allow statutory water companies to change their debentures so that, instead of the debentures rights being embedded in local statutes, they would take a non-statutory form. In many ways the two new clauses which would be introduced by these two amendments parallel Clauses 98 and 99, which allow a statutory water company to substitute a memorandum and articles for its current statutory constitution. The approval of 75 per cent. of each class of debenture holder would be required to enable changes to be made and aggrieved minorities would have access to the courts for redress.
I can understand the reluctance of the companies to have their debentures left in an out-dated statutory form when they will be able to adopt a modern constitution for the rest of their affairs. Clearly, as well as being inconvenient, it will raise practical difficulties for them.
However, despite my general sympathy with the aims of the amendments, I have to say that they are flawed. On a purely technical level there are difficulties for example with the scope of the new clauses as specified in subsection (1)(a) of the first new clause which refers to,
"provision relating to borrowed monies".
Clause 95(2)(b) is also concerned with changes to such provisions and the two clauses would not sit well together. More importantly, there are questions not addressed by the new clauses on which there are currently no clearcut answers, but which must be addressed. For example, under the Insolvency Act 1986, new securities do not carry perfect and unqualified rights until six or 12 months have passed, depending on the circumstances. It is far from clear whether the changes proposed here could result in a temporary diminution in rights for the holders.

137
The most worrying aspect of the proposed clauses, however, is that they propose the removal of the debenture holders' statutory rights without specifying what will take their place. I accept that approval of 75 per cent. of the debenture holders is required, but this would still leave a perhaps unjustifiable degree of freedom to the companies. Clauses 98 and 99, which concern the conversion of the rest of the companies' constitutions, only allow changes from a statutory constitution to memorandum and articles, which are themselves deeply embedded in company law. I do not think we could be content with the proposals for change without the new structure for debenture holders' rights being clearly specified in the Bill and well precedented.
In summary, we consider that we must strike a balance between the disadvantage to the companies of retaining an outdated foundation for their debentures and the potential disadvantages to debenture holders of pushing through major changes which are substantially flawed. I should add that some debenture holders have already expressed their concern on the need for adequate protection of their interests during these unprecedented changes in the water industry. On balance, we do not think that we would be justified in making such major changes without an opportunity for them to be properly considered by all involved when the arguments for change are those of convenience rather than
138
necessity. I must regretfully ask the Committee to resist these amendments.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: In responding to my noble friend, I must say that I take on board what he said about balance and about there possibly being a need for further consideration. I should hope that before the Bill becomes an Act on the statute book further consideration will be given to this point. Something must be done about the outdated basis on which the companies have to work in this regard. I hope that the Government will give further consideration at Report stage to the problem which the companies face. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 361L not moved.]
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 eleven o'clock.

  HONDURAS
  HONDURAS
  EL SALVADOR
  EL SALVADOR
  GUATEMALA
  GUATEMALA
  ACADEMIC BRAIN DRAIN
  ACADEMIC BRAIN DRAIN
  DISPENSING DOCTORS AND CHEMISTS
  DISPENSING DOCTORS AND CHEMISTS
  BENEFIT CLAIMANTS: OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT WORK
  BENEFIT CLAIMANTS: OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT WORK
  MOTORING OFFENCES: PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
  MOTORING OFFENCES: PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
  SUNDAY TRADING: REFORM PROPOSALS
  SUNDAY TRADING: REFORM PROPOSALS
  PRISONERS DETAINED DURING THE QUEEN'S PLEASURE
  PRISONERS DETAINED DURING THE QUEEN'S PLEASURE
  PLESSEY TAKE-OVER: UK DEFENCE INTERESTS
  PLESSEY TAKE-OVER: UK DEFENCE INTERESTS
  UK/US DEFENCE DISCUSSIONS
  UK/US DEFENCE DISCUSSIONS
  URANIUM IMPORTS FROM USA
  URANIUM IMPORTS FROM USA
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION: PRIVATE FINANCE
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION: PRIVATE FINANCE