Sitting of 23 May 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MIDLAND METRO BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Wheelchairs and Artificial Limbs
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the provision of wheelchairs and artificial limbs.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): The Disablement Services Authority was established for this purpose. Its first annual report was published in 1988, detailing the improvements made in the service to date. A copy of the report is available in the Library. The annual report for 1989 is being prepared and will be published in August.
    I am sure that the authority will be happy to answer any particular questions that the right hon. Gentleman may have.
    Mr. Ashley: I am grateful for that full reply. Will the Minister exercise his influence to ensure that every disabled person who acquires an artificial limb or a wheelchair receives an appropriate one soon, that outdoor power wheelchairs are soon made available, and that the funds of the Disablement Services Authority are increased to enable it to provide these?
    Mr. Mellor: I and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled are in regular contact with Lord Holderness. It is certainly our commitment that everyone who needs a wheelchair or artificial limb should have one. Work is going forward, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the indoor-outdoor occupant-controlled powered wheelchair, and we hope that it will be possible to set up studies of its effectiveness in actual use. We are also keen to develop an active-user wheelchair for younger and more active disabled people.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. and learned Friend support the appeal by Professor McColl to doctors who prescribe wheelchairs, to the effect that millions of pounds could be saved on wheelchairs that are hardly ever used or are not returned when they are no longer required? That money could be used to upgrade heavily used wheelchairs.
    Mr. Mellor: To my mind, that is a useful additional point to that made earlier by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Just as it is our commitment that everyone who needs an artificial limb or wheelchair should have one, we believe that it is a waste of resources if people who do not need wheelchairs or artificial limbs are prescribed them. We need sensible prescribing which meets the needs of disabled people. Otherwise, as Professor McColl has pointed out, limbs and wheelchairs are stored and never used.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there has riot been rapid enough progress in recent years in making available to people in need of them special wheelchairs which are suitable for their circumstances? So far, there has been a general approach and a standard wheelchair which has failed to meet the needs of many people. Although we are waiting the outcome of studies, is it not possible to be more flexible and responsive to individual needs?
    Mr. Mellor: I sympathise very much with what the hon. Gentleman says, in that I certainly believe—I hope that I conveyed the flavour of this point in my initial answer—that wheelchairs need to be more tailored to individual needs. That is why we are keen on the active-user wheelchair and keen that the studies on the indoor-outdoor occupant-controlled powered wheelchair should go ahead. It is also why I had a most useful meeting with Lord Holderness the other day. I know that the Disablement Services Authority is keen to make progress, too.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not now extremely urgent for the Minister to press the Disablement Services Authority for a commitment to provide outdoor powered wheelchairs and to supply the resources? Has he read the article in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Graham Mulley which shows that only one in four hospital wheelchairs is safe and in good order, with the result that patients suffer pressure sores, fatigue, falls, shin injuries, chafed heels, penetrating foot injuries and lacerations? Does the Minister agree that that is deeply disgraceful, and what action has he taken since the article was written?
    Mr. Mellor: The action that we have taken, as the right hon. Member knows, preceded the article in the two respects that he mentioned. First, on the indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs, he will know that the Disablement Services Authority started a 12-month pilot study in January, and I hope that that will proceed successfully. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the report in 1986 by the McColl committee, which was established by the Government, first drew attention to the large number of inadequacies in wheelchair repair arrangements. The wheelchair repair service was open to competitive tendering in 1988–89. Some 79 contracts have been awarded, and we intend to ensure that the service is much improved. We certainly do not mind articles pointing out its deficiencies as that is a spur to further achievements and improvements.

    Cervical Cancer Screening
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any improvements have been made to the time in which results of cervical cancer screening are issued as a result of the use of private sector laboratories.
    Mr. Mellor: I am pleased to say there has been a further improvement in the time taken by National Health Service laboratories to report on cervical smears. More than 85 per cent. are currently meeting our target time of one month. This is due partly to the use of private laboratories. Other measures taken have included employment of additional staff, overtime working and use of other NHS laboratories.
    Dr. Twinn: I am grateful for that encouraging answer. Does not this successful co-operation between the private sector and the NHS have wider implications?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes. I am sure that such a partnership will be useful in a whole range of NHS activities. Fortunately, examples of co-operation between district health authorities and the private sector over a whole range of NHS activities are legion.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that his Department loses no opportunity for co-operation with the private service in any way, as this often cuts worrying waiting time for patients after tests, and leads to much better treatment?
    Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the highest hopes for our extremely complex cervical cancer screening programme, but obviously much of that is set at naught if there are long waiting times. I am glad to say that while in December 1988, in 43 districts results were taking more than four weeks to come through, by the end of March 1989 the number was down to 25. I hope that by improvements in NHS laboratories and, where appropriate, use of private laboratories we shall be able to reduce that figure still further.

    "Working for Patients"
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of representations received by his Department since the publication of "Working for Patients" which express criticism or anxiety in regard to present Government health policies.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): So far, I have received more than 5,500 representations on the White Paper, "Working for Patients". Many ask questions, many support all or some of the proposals, and some refer only to specific aspects. It is not possible to distinguish the letters in the way that the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister expect to receive more letters, not just about resources and the apparent commitment to destabilise the service but in response to yesterday's announcement, which seems to reveal an assumption that a captain of industry is very much in a part-time position, while nurses are so busy caring, in a way that the Government do not reveal, that they cannot be spared to serve on the policy decisions board of the NHS?
    Mr. Clarke: The people who will be given much more local responsibility for managing and delivering the service will be encouraged to see that we are able to recruit to the policy board the services of some high-powered and successful people with experience of large organisations. We also have an important job of nursing management to do. That is why there is a director of nursing on the management executive who is charged with that part of the management responsibility that has to be done from the centre.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In the correspondence that my right hon. and learned Friend is receiving, is he getting the sort of letters that many of us are getting from elderly patients who are being scared by the British Medical Association, through their doctors, with the most vicious lies and propaganda? What does he intend to do to make the BMA realise that it has a duty not to scare patients?
    Mr. Clarke: I have written to every general practitioner pointing out that the leaflets that they were distributing were inaccurate and untrue. I hope that many have withdrawn them as a result, but I cannot approach every GP who uses the tactics described by my hon. Friend. It is grotesquely unfair to make such claims to elderly and vulnerable patients in pursuit of some perceived interest. Now that we have settled the GP contract, I hope that there will be much less of that, and much more of the sensible discussion that I have made it perfectly clear that I am open to having with the BMA.
    Mr. Fearn: Can the Minister confirm that among those representations and anxieties, many members of the nursing profession have written pointing out that no one from their profession has been elected to the board that he has announced? Why did he not make a statement to the House about that board? Also, what representations has he received from medical secretaries who are having a tough time at the moment?
    Mr. Clarke: I have not yet received many letters from nurses about the make-up of the policy board. As their general secretary has written to me, I shall no doubt be receiving some more, but they will be given the same explanation—that the policy board is not a representative committee. [Interruption.] Looking back, I believe that it was an extremely bad tradition of the Health Service that everything had to be subjected to a committee consisting of one doctor, one nurse, one administrator and one treasurer, so that prolonged multi-disciplinary deliberations took place before, in most cases, no decisions were reached. The policy board is charged with the overall strategy for the service. On the executive charged with the management responsibilities it is essential to have a director of nursing, and we have such a director.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend commend the approach taken by the general manager of the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham, who said that his hospital was extremely interested in becoming an NHS trust hospital so long as that was in the interests of the patients whom it served? Is not that a constructive approach to the White Paper and one which contrasts substantially with the general approach taken by the BMA?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely, and I believe that the decision has been supported by the majority of the medical

    785
    staff at the Queen's medical centre. I take that as an expression of interest because potentially the proposal could benefit patients. I agree with the general manager that after a great deal more discussion, which has to take place, the decision as to whether the hospital becomes self-governing will depend on whether that is in the interests of the patients, the hospital and the staff.
    Mr. Turner: Has the Secretary of State seen the open letter published in the Wolverhampton Express and Star last week from more than 50 per cent. of Wolverhampton consultants, saying that they could not now guarantee the inhabitants of Wolverhampton a comprehensive health service due to lack of resources and threatened ward closures? What has the Secretary of State to say about that parlous affair?
    Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that in all branches of politics and public life it is easier to get people to sign round robins and petitions than to give serious views and discussion. I cannot think that the majority of Wolverhampton consultants believe such nonsense.
    Mr. Turner: They signed it.
    Mr. Clarke: There is nothing in the White Paper to justify making such alarmist allegations to the population of Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time for the hyperbole and scaremongering by the BMA to stop because it is very confusing for patients and adds nothing to the debate? As a conciliatory gesture, is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to meet the BMA without any preconditions whatever just to talk about the proposals which will help patient care?
    Mr. Clarke: When the BMA announced last week that it wished to meet me for discussions, I announced my readiness to have such discussions. The precondition has to be that we all agree on the aim of improving the National Health Service. I look forward to the BMA putting forward positive ideas for improving the National Health Service. I am still waiting for a date to be arranged for the discussions. It is a great pity that after announcing its wish to talk about the proposals, the BMA has now started publishing whole-page newspaper advertisements containing a great list of blatant untruths, which I do not think for one moment that the BMA believes but which are designed merely to frighten patients in the hope that that will somehow strengthen the BMA's bargaining power in discussions with me.
    Mr. Robin Cook: What representations did the Secretary of State receive to the effect that what the Health Service needed was three industrialists all clutching their private medical cover? Is he aware that the chief contribution of Sir Graham Day and Bob Scholey to the public sector has been in closing large chunks of it and privatising what was left? Is that why they have been chosen to run the Health Service? How could the Secretary of State find places for four business men on the health policy board but no room for even one nurse? Have not those who know how to care for patients got at least as much to offer the Health Service as those who know only how to read a balance sheet and close a factory?
    Mr. Clarke: It is a serious criticism of the hon. Gentleman that he reminds me so much of his hon. Friend
    786
    the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) reacting to the Griffiths report on general management in the Health Service four or five years ago. The hon. Gentleman talked a lot of nonsense about supermarkets and how the proposals were not suitable, but the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) knows that he would not wish to reverse the great management improvements introduced by Sir Roy Griffiths from Sainsbury's. He knows that a giant organisation requires people able to cope with providing leadership and guidance for managers who will be charged with such great responsibility in the service. The hon. Gentleman should not resort to such populist nonsense when his own proposals are simply that every health authority should be dominated by local councillors and trade unionists, who I suppose he imagines will bring a dynamic new improvement to the way in which care is delivered.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to hazard a guess as to how many of the innocent patients who are writing to us as a result of being lobbied by rather unprofessional and unscrupulous doctors— [Interruption.]—have any comprehension of the true nature of our reforms? Rather than feeding patients a diet of misinformation, would not doctors be better advised to tell them the true facts and acknowledge the Government's responsibility in overhauling a National Health Service system which was creaking under the strains and demands placed on it?
    Mr. Clarke: I have had the same experience as my hon. Friend. There is one village in my constituency from which I keep receiving letters, mainly from worried and elderly people, beginning "I agree with my doctor that" and then giving some nonsense description of the White Paper. I am having to write to reassure those people. That is in contrast with the large meetings that I have had in the past week —there were two in Yorkshire and one last night in Winchester—which were attended by many general practitioners and where there was much criticism, I concede, but much constructive discussion as well. It is ridiculous that when we agree with the profession that we want to make a better National Health Service for cur patients, some GPs have to resort to the low-level propaganda from which my hon. Friend and I have suffered.

    Nurses (Regrading Appeals)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the nurses regrading appeals in the Leicestershire health district.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The grading appeals are being dealt with under a long-standing agreement between the management and staff sides of the general Whitley council on procedures for settling differences over NHS employees' conditions of service. Detailed arrangements for operating the agreement are for local decision.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the director of personnel of the Leicestershire health authority that the appeal procedures are a major distraction from the work of the National Health Service? Does he also agree that in processing the 1,500 appeals that have been made it will take up to two years—until mid-1991—to clear the backlog, which will be a substantial

    787
    hardship for those who have appealed? Why does he not just allow those appeals and enable the nurses to get the salaries that they so obviously deserve?
    Mr. Freeman: More than 500,000 posts in the National Health Service were subject to regrading last year. Some nurses have appealed, and those appeals are progressing at local level under a procedure agreed with the trade unions. The vast majority of nurses are satisfied with their new grading and pay last year went up by an average of 18 per cent. as a result.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that whereas under the last Labour Government nurses' pay was actually cut, under the Conservative Administration it has increased by 44 per cent., including a rise of 25 per cent. in the past two years?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The statistics show that in the five years to 1979 nurses' pay went down in real terms by 21 per cent.

    British Medical Association
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what matters were discussed at the last meeting with the chairman of the British Medical Association.
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I last met the chairman of the BMA formally on 22 February when I discussed with him the remuneration of hospital doctors. I have since then met the general medical services committee's negotiators on 4 May to discuss the remuneration of GPs under the new GP contract.
    Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the current advertising campaign with the chairman of the BMA and point out that there are so many inaccuracies in it that it is difficult to believe that those responsible for it have even bothered to read the White Paper? Will he seek a further meeting so that he can present a copy of the White Paper to the chairman, together with one for the chairman's advertisers, so that they can reprint the adverts but this time tell the truth?
    Mr. Clarke: I was astonished that just three days after the BMA said that it wanted to see me and to have discussions, those advertisements were produced. I was equally astonished that the chairman of the BMA has kept saying that he entirely shares the Government's aims as set out in the preface to the White Paper, and that he and most of his colleagues believe that there is a great deal of good in the White Paper and want us to experiment with and pilot the rest, but followed that with advertisements containing not one word about those positive sentiments and a lot of totally untrue allegations which are simply designed to alarm elderly and chronically sick patients. I should like the BMA to stick to its more constructive proposals and to have a formal word with me about the White Paper for the first time since I presented it to the BMA.
    Mr. Hind: How can the BMA, the doctors' trade union, describe the NHS as,
    "underfunded, undermined and under threat",
    788
    when the Government have increased spending on the NHS since 1979 from £8 billion to £26 billion, which includes a substantial rise in doctors' pay? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the advertising campaign is misleading and that it is ovepriced, overwrought and certainly over the top?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not criticise the BMA for using advertising agencies appropriately, but I advise it not to leave the text entirely to the copywriters. It is best to give instructions to the agency about what one wishes to say that is positive and then to make sure that the text is written by someone who has read and understood the proposals. The BMA has not followed either rule. My hon. Friend's slogan in certainly as effective as that of the BMA.
    We all agree that the NHS needs more money, although the Government have increased spending on it by 40 per cent. in real terms since we came to power. That money will have the best effect for the patient if it is spent more sensibly and by a better-run Health Service. I am still waiting to hear what positive ideas the BMA might have for improving the running of the Health Service.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are not GPs in Kent up in arms over the Secretary of State's proposals—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Kent. Is opting out a solution to the problems of the people of Sevenoaks, who face the closure of Emily Jackson house and the rundown of acute services at Sevenoaks hospital? What about the League of Friends at Sevenoaks, which raised £100,000 for acute service support facilities but finds that that money has been wasted? What about the Tory Members from Kent who bleat to their constituents about what they are doing in Westminster but vote with the Government on all these stupid proposals about budget cuts?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's new guise as a man of Kent is intriguing but I suggest that he should do a little more homework on the county before he launches into local politics there in competition with my hon. Friends.
    Expressions of interest in self-governing hospitals will come to me and my Department only at the end of this month. They are expressions of interest by doctors, managers and those involved in the hospitals who can see the potential of our proposals to improve the service in their area and give them a greater ability to control what happens in Sevenoaks or wherever. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see whether that is pursued in Sevenoaks. Those who are interested will enter into a process of discussion with us so that we can ensure that any hospitals which become self-governing will raise the quality of service for the people whom they serve.
    Mr. Duffy: What will be the Secretary of State's response to the BMA representatives who voiced the concern of their colleagues, notably in Sheffield, that patients most in need of care, such as the chronically sick and the elderly, stand to be penalised through budgetary considerations arising out of his new proposals?
    Mr. Clarke: People in Sheffield are still complaining about the contract. Frankly, they would be well advised to take the advice of their negotiators who are commending a package that is fair to doctors and will pave the way for a big improvement in the quality of the family doctor service in this country. The hon. Gentleman's comments on the elderly and chronically sick are the opposite to the truth. There is a greater variety in the quality and range of

    789
    service provided for the elderly and chronically sick than there is for most other people. The introduction of the new systems of clinical audit and charging district health authorities with the responsibility to use their money to most effect for the services that local residents need most will have the effect of raising the overall quality of care for the elderly and chronically sick. The scares about them are part of the background to the dispute over the new contract for GPs, which I hope is now resolved.
    Miss Widdecombe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, bearing in mind the assessment of Kent by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to spend his time looking after his own constituency in Cumbria? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree further that all doctors in Kent have had the opportunity to consult their patients and that many of them have expressed approval of the new plans, and that, where there is interest in self-governing hospitals, it is because they believe that it will be in the interests of the provision of better service for the people of Kent?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the attempt by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to be a latter-day Wat Tyler and raise the population of Kent will be highly unsuccessful. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that many people are interested in the proposals. Among them are medical staff and others in Kent. Kent has a tradition of being an extremely go-ahead county in the forefront of many reforms in medical care and social services. Many people in Kent will be eager to see the opportunities that our White Paper gives them for improving their ability to deliver good quality services.
    Mr. Robin Cook: When the Secretary of State next meets BMA representatives, will he answer their frequent questions about when he will respond to the Griffiths report on community care? Is he aware of the stark contrast between pushing through his proposals, which are opposed by everybody in the medical profession, and the year that he has taken sitting on the Griffiths report, which is supported by the health profession? Did he note the inquest last week into the death of Beverley Lewis who, blind from rubella, starved to death in the community? How many more scandals must there be before the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that a growing number of elderly and handicapped people in the community need better community care, and need it urgently?
    Mr. Clarke: For 10 years we have been giving priority to the needs of elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. There has been the most enormous development in community services both in the National Health Service and local authorities over that time. As far as I can recall, the Labour party did nothing in that respect. We set up the Griffiths committee and we are now considering its extremely detailed proposals. I tell the BMA, as I tell everybody else, that we will report soon with our conclusions. It is an important and extremely complex problem, and we must determine how best to take forward the continuing development of good quality community services in this country.
    Mr. Maples: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the chairman of the BMA, will he draw his attention to the enormous variations in unit costs
    790
    throughout the NHS, which are clearly shown by the Department of Health's own performance indicators? Will he point out that they clearly show how much room for improved performance there is in the NHS and that the proposals for an internal market are designed to achieve that improvement?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly will. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that high costs do not always mean the best quality of care and that it is possible to achieve extremely good quality at a reasonable cost and thereby extend the service that we give to patients. In an internal market we will ensure that far more is known than ever before about high quality care, what the variations in cost are and why, and then place doctors and managers in a much better position to make sensible decisions about how to maximise good quality care for their patients.

    "Working for Patients"
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will pay a visit to the Glasgow, Central constituency in the next few weeks to meet local doctors in order to discuss the White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Allen: That is a disappointing answer. Scottish Members of Parliament and, above all, my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will be particularly disappointed. As the Secretary of State is not to go to Glasgow, will he get in touch with and make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and ask him to ensure that the two dermatology wards at the royal infirmary in the Glasgow, Central constituency are kept open, as he plans to close both wards on Friday?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I regard the Vale of Glamorgan as having been won in part by a campaign of untruths about the Health Service report. The local general practitioners, then in dispute about their contracts, persuaded some people that there was a threat that the Health Service was going to be privatised, or something of the kind. I accept that that influenced the result. In my experience, such campaigns cannot run for very long. I do not believe that they will run again in Glasgow, Central now that matters have already moved on a great deal since the last election. I advise the electors of Glasgow to beware of people from Nottingham who suddenly take an interest in dermatology in Glasgow for party political reasons.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if he reconsidered his decision to visit Glasgow, Central, he would be welcome in my constituency of Tayside, North to meet my GPs and discuss the changes proposed in the White Paper, particularly because the money will follow the patients? Cottage hospitals and other popular hospitals in Scotland can be kept open by the doctors directing the patients to them.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's invitation. I have held three meetings in Scotland on the National Health Service White Paper and I found an extremely interesting reaction. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), are

    791
    responsible for delivering health care in Scotland. I know that they are pointing out to their colleagues in the Health Service the great potential advantages that our reforms open up for them.
    Dr. Reid: I should like to express my deep, heartfelt and sincere regret at the fact that the Secretary of State is not to visit Glasgow, Central. If he does visit, I hope that he will be just as effective from everyone's point of view as he was in the Vale of Glamorgan.
    If the Secretary of State goes to Glasgow, Central, would he care to take a 50p bus trip up the road to Motherwell to meet doctors from the health improvement service campaign for Lanarkshire? Will he have the guts to tell them to their faces what he and his colleagues have called them today, unscrupulous liars who are misleading the population, or will he recant and accept that they are non-political and fair minded people who welcome one or two of his proposals, but who conclude that in general the proposals will be the beginning of the end of the NHS? When he is in Glasgow, Central and Lanarkshire, will he explain why everyone in Britain with an interest in the Health Service is a liar and out of step, except him?
    Mr. Clarke: I am always glad to visit Glasgow, and I did so often in my previous job, because it is one of the most successful examples of urban regeneration in the country in its inner-city area. It has benefited considerably from the revival of the British economy and the Government's enterprise in restoring life and prosperity to the city centre.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the doctors conceded that there was a great deal to welcome in the White Paper. They came out with some slogan or other which the hon. Gentleman repeated. I must point out to the doctors that their advertisements are patently untrue. When I meet individual doctors in Motherwell or elsewhere, I find that they avoid the question when I try to get them to justify the statements put out in the name of their association. That is no way to campaign on a serious subject like the National Health Service. I welcome constructive discussion with doctors from Motherwell or anywhere else.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many elderly and other vulnerable people in Glasgow, Central who are caused unnecessary distress by unfounded suggestions that the Government intend to privatise the Health Service? Does he agree that Opposition Members who try to fan such deliberate untruths are unscrupulously and uncaringly exploiting those vulnerable people for their own sordid political advantage?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that it will work to their advantage as they believe it will. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is what they are doing at the moment. However, I cannot see how they will defend the Vale of Glamorgan when they must face a situation where there has been no privatisation, where a great deal more control and influence has been placed in the hands of local doctors in relation to local services and where the situation is plainly improving for patients. As we are getting on well with the implementation, I remain confident that that will be the position by the time we reach the next general election.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Returning to the original point about the dermatology units at Glasgow royal infirmary,
    792
    will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to speak to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland because this is a vital issue? Does he realise that dermatology units have been quite separate from other wards in Scotland for more than three decades and that apparently none of the consultants involved have had discussions with Greater Glasgow health board on the matter? Would it not make more sense to await the outcome of the strategic review which was planned in 1984?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the representations that have been made on this important subject today, particularly when they come from an hon. Member who comes from north of the border and somewhat nearer to Glasgow than the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) who previously raised the matter. This is not a matter for me, but it is a serious matter which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be considering seriously.

    Women Doctors
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners contract will affect women doctors.
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the response by general practitioners to the new contract announced to the House on 5 May.
    Mr. Mellor: Women doctors are an asset to partnerships because a number of patients prefer to see a woman doctor. Our proposals for formalising part-time working and job-sharing arrangements will help women doctors seeking a reduced commitment—for example, because of family responsibilities. Women general practitioners will also benefit from retention of partnership average list sizes for calculating entitlement to basic practice allowance and the reduced threshold for full basic practice allowance from 1,500 patients previously proposed to 1,200.
    On the overall contract, the negotiators undertook, as part of the agreement between us on the major outstanding issues, to commend the new contract to the annual conference of local medical committees on 21 and 22 June.
    Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful for that helpful answer, but does my hon. and learned Friend accept that despite the BMA's propaganda, which was designed to mislead and frighten patients, the general practitioners' contract will formalise part-time working arrangements for lady doctors, help with job sharing and ease conditions for locum assistance?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, the contract will do all those things.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who were unhappy about the first proposal for the contract warmly welcome the flexibility that Ministers showed in putting forward the revised proposals which have now been accepted by the BMA negotiators? Is he further aware that those of us who pressed for changes now expect the BMA collectively to settle on the matter?
    Mr. Mellor: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. We listened to what was said about the draft contract, including representations from hon. Members who had met their general practitioners. We listened and changes were made on both sides. This is a fair deal and I trust that the local medical committees will endorse it.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that, although the new proposals are slightly superior to the unbelievably crass original proposals, the typical woman doctor who joins a general practice now has a list size of about 350, on which the change from 1,500 to 1,200 will have no bearing? Does he further agree that, although averaging will now be allowed, women doctors will probably not be allowed to become partners, and, since 50 per cent. of those now leaving medical schools are women, they will hit a brick wall and will become only employees, not partners, in general practice?
    Mr. Mellor: None of that is right. Averaging will remove the principal point that the hon. Gentleman made. The BMA negotiators have agreed the contract. I appreciate that that means that the hon. Gentleman's fox has been shot—but there it is.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's reply, but will he confirm that, in practice, a two-doctor practice may be divided into three part-time practices, similar to one that we saw in Newcastle recently which wants to continue to give good service to its patients?
    Mr. Mellor: I shall confirm that point in writing to the hon. Gentleman, but it sounds right to me.
    Mr. Favell: Having heard what my hon. and learned Friend has to say, is it not now clear that the only doctor, whether man or woman, who has anything to fear from the new BMA contract is the bad or the idle?
    Mr. Mellor: For the first time we have what many progressive doctors have been asking for for a long time —a performance-related contract that rewards initiative and those doctors who offer more services to their patients, not just those who are sick but those who need screening and better services to maintain themselves in good health. The capitation arrangement of 60 per cent. will ensure that there is a proper consumerist approach within the Health Service—and not before time.

    Private Medicine
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the impact of private medicine on the National Health Service; and what have been the findings.
    Mr. Freeman: Three studies have been commissioned from Sheffield university. These studies have been published and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library. We welcome the private sector's contribution, which adds choice and flexibility in health care.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister did not say what the findings were. He is aware that adequate research has not been done into the impact of the private system on the National Health Service. Is he aware that we really must get away from assertions and have adequate research? Is
    794
    he further aware that the findings of that research would be that the private health service badly affects the NHS? Would the Minister agree with that?
    Mr. Freeman: No, I would not agree. The research shows a very modest loss, of 0.3 per cent., of nurses each year from the Health Service to the private sector. The official Labour party policy, just published, is that Labour remains firmly opposed to the private sector. That is based on dogma. The private sector is complementary to the NHS. It offers choice and flexibility.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had a number of meetings. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Prime Minister recall that three months ago she said that we were proceeding towards zero inflation? Will she take this opportunity to update the House on progress?
    The Prime Minister: The steps that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken will deal with the problem—[Interruption.]—and get inflation down and on a downward course again. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 8 per cent. was low for Labour. It is unacceptably high for us.
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Holt: Following my right hon. Friend's successful visit to Teeside in November 1987, when she met the then unemployed Mr. Eric Fletcher, may I ask if she has seen last week's Middlesbrough Evening Gazette in which Mr. Fletcher is reported to be "doing smashing"? He is now buying his council house, has money in his bank and is grateful for the day he met the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I understand that, on my advice, he took a good training course, that he did well on that course, that he has a job and that due to his own vigorous efforts, he has done well in that job. He is to be warmly congratulated. So should the Government, on having the right policies which enabled him to do that and which are bringing increasing prosperity to the north-east, among all other regions.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying last week that we picked up our inflationary tendency by trying to shadow the deutschmark? Will she say exactly who made the decision to shadow the deutschmark?
    The Prime Minister: The policies are the policies of the Government—[Interruption.]—asare all our policies, and they have been infinitely more successful on inflation than the 26 per cent. that was reached under Labour.
    Mr. Kinnock: So, the Prime Minister is saying that the reason we have 8 per cent. inflation and have picked up that tendency is that the Government, under her leadership, made a complete mess of it?
    The Prime Minister: No. A complete mess would be the way to describe what Labour Members did when they were in office.
    Mr. Onslow: As my right hon. Friend continues her commendable resistance to the threats of Socialist harmonisation by the bureaucrats in Brussels, may I ask her to seek also to promote some European initiatives to protect rain forests in Brazil and elephants in Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. We have policies to help protect rain forests in Brazil through our aid programme and through training people in Brazil and elsewhere to do precisely that. As for elephants and the worrying tendency to sell ivory, we agree with the international convention and we shall be raising the matter again at the next Environment Council. We believe that the sale of new ivory should be stopped altogether.
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Prime Minister realise that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees, patients and staff are all finding it difficult to convince the Secretary of State for Health to scrap his White Paper "Working for Patients"? What plans does the Prime Minister have for recovering the £11 million of unpaid bills left by people who have abused the private facilities of the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: The White Paper "Working for Patients" will improve the Health Service by giving hospitals more choice and more say in their own affairs, and by giving doctors more choice in running their own budgets. And there has been an enormous increase in resources from £8 billion to £25 billion per year, which has enabled doctors—finterruptionl If hon. Gentlemen cannot recognise correct accountancy, I am not in the least surprised. Perhaps they can raise the matter under the public expenditure survey, which shows that Labour spent £8 billion on the Health Service and that we are spending about between £24 billion and £25 billion now. That is the measure of the improvement to the Health Service.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent report concerning the low level of prosecutions and fines related to litter offences? Has she studied also the findings of several reports of the Select Committee on the Environment showing a similar situation in respect of very serious environmental offences? Does she agree that greater concern should be shown by the prosecuting authorities and by magistrates?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report—and clearly the situation varies greatly from one part of the country to another. In areas where the local people, magistrates, the Tidy Britain group and the prosecuting authorities are greatly concerned to have a tidy Britain, there is much more success in achieving that than in other places. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecuting authorities and magistrates should have regard to the need for a tidy Britain, and I hope that there will be a sufficient number of prosecutions and sufficiently severe sentences.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole nation will welcome yesterday's announcement by the Foreign Secretary that he had renegotiated his treaty with the Prime Minister, so that the decision on the European monetary system will be taken by the Government as a whole? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether that decision will be taken on the basis of a majority vote or will it be, as usual, subject to her personal veto?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has no experience of government. Under collective responsibility, we are all responsible.
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilshire: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government have no plans to reintroduce secondary picketing, to renationalise British Telecom, or to give away our nuclear deterrent in exchange for today's equivalent of a piece of paper from Munich? Does she agree that such policies amount to a cynical attempt to trade beliefs for votes, and if implemented would spell disaster for this country?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that we have no plans to reintroduce secondary picketing, to re-nationalise British Telecom, or to get rid of the nuclear deterrent. All our policies are sound—sound at home and sound for the best defence of Britain—and there is not a cynical policy among them.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome that will be given to the report in today's Daily Mail that she has joined the fight against the extinction of the African elephant? However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-important convention on international trade in endangered species is not due to take place until October and that many elephants may be killed before then? Will she use her influence to cut through the red tape and to secure immediate action on that very important issue?
    The Prime Minister: As my noble Friend, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside announced yesterday, having just returned from an official visit to Kenya, he will call for concerted European support for a total ban at the next Council meeting of Environment Ministers, which takes place in Luxembourg on 8 June, considerably before the international convention is due to meet.
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Grocott: The whole House will appreciate the reason for the Prime Minister's total opposition to television viewers being able to see her performance at Question Time. Can she confirm that that reason is that this is one photo opportunity that she cannot stage-manage?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks his customary poppycock.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the indication by the Secretary of State for Wales of his preference for a different emphasis in economic regional policies, will the Prime Minister confirm that the entire reason for the existence of the Welsh Office—and of the Scottish Office—is to enable a different policy to be pursued where circumstances dictate it? Will she tell the House whether she has full confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have. The policies that are being pursued and are bringing such prosperity to Wales are Conservative Government policies, and I hope that everyone is very grateful and thankful for them.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mendacious and inaccurate campaign being waged by the 13ritish Medical Association suggests some deficiency in diagnostic ability on the part of the doctors who are contributing to it? If their medical judgment is as bad as their political judgment, would not patients be well advised to find another doctor, and quickly?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland have negotiated a very good contract with the doctors, and I hope that they will in general accept it. Among other things, the White Paper suggested that people who were not satisfied with their general practitioner could move from one to another more easily. Under Conservative Governments there have been more general practitioners, so the number of each list has gone down by about 300, giving doctors more time to spend with each patient.

    Child Sexual Abuse
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to increase the amount of money being spent by Her Majesty's Government's Departments into research into the sexual abuse of children; and if she will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: We will continue to support research into child sex abuse. We have already increased our expenditure, and further research proposals will be considered in the light of the knowledge gained from existing studies.
    Mr. Allen: Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that in 10 years her Government, through the Department of Health, has put just £1 million into this difficult and sensitive subject? Will she consider establishing a national institute for the study of the sexual abuse of children, as has been done in Canada, Australia, America and many other countries? The victims need help and the perpetrators need to be prevented. For a very small
    798
    amount of money the Prime Minister could do a great deal of good. Will she take that suggestion away and consider it?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is a question of finding extra money. Well over £800 million is provided for basic research. It would be quite easy to put into that sphere and perhaps take a little away from others, but we must decide our priorities.
    The real difficulty, as I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know, is that of designing and conducting research and obtaining incontrovertible results. We need to ensure that projects are considered properly before they are commissioned.
    Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bury district health authority will shortly be appointing two additional consultants, thus bringing to 16 the number of such consultants appointed in the area in the past five years? Will she welcome that contribution to the Health Service?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Are these consultants concerned with the sexual abuse of children?
    Mr. Burt: No.
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Macdonald: Can I ask the Prime Minister to state her complete confidence in the prediction made by the Chancellor as recently as two months ago that inflation this year would peak at 8 per cent. and not go higher?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our efforts to attack inflation will be infinitely more successful than those of the last Labour Government. The Labour party was the party of inflation and when it had got inflation up to 25 per cent. had not even the resources to inflation-proof pensioners' pensions.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the people of Afghanistan managed to see off the Red Army without the need for nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; with a good deal of help from other people.

  BILL PRESENTED

    RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS
    Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Stuart Randall, Miss Ann

    799
    Widdecombe, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Terence L. Higgins and Mr. Gerald Bermingham, presented a Bill to make provision for the wearing of protective headgear by under-eighteen year old
    800
    riders of equine animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Take Away Food (Biodegradable Packaging)
3.30 pm
Mr. James Paice: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require food sold as "take away" to be packaged in materials which shall be biodegradable and for connected purposes.
The problem of litter has quite rightly become the subject of much attention both within the House and throughout the country. Many initiatives have been suggested and some have been tried, but I think that the whole House will agree that there are no easy answers to the problem. Indeed, even within the food and packaging industries, there are different views, although there are efforts by the Industry Commitee for Packaging and the Environment to develop a policy.
The Bill which I seek to introduce today aims at one source of litter—the take-away food outlet. I wish to emphasise that this does not necessarily mean all fast food outlets, where, of course, food is often consumed on the premises. I address the specific problem of food sold to be eaten away from the premises, sometimes at home but more often walking along a street, in a car or in a lay-by. As we all know, this packaging is often discarded where it is finished with. It is a disgusting and disgraceful habit, but it happens.
Obviously, litter dropped on streets is relatively easy to clear up. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has introduced a Bill to require the owners of such outlets to clear up outside their premises. It is not so easy, though, outside the built-up areas. Anyone driving through the countryside today can only be horrified at the amount of litter which lies on motorway verges, around lay-bys and picnic areas, in ditches and elsewhere. The majority of this material is the ubiquitous plastic, and it will remain where it falls for many months or years. Some effort is being made to introduce photodegradable material, but this only breaks down under ultra-violet light and we all know that, with the exception of the last two weeks, in this country that is a pretty rare commodity. Anyway, the litter often lies out of direct sunlight. Such a breakdown is not complete but only achieves fragmentation into dust, which remains as plastic in the soil.
There are, of course, arguments against using fully biodegradable materials, by which I mean materials which can be fully broken down by micro-organisms in the British climate. There is the argument that it will encourage litter dropping and discourage attempts to increase responsibility. I believe that to be a mistaken argument. Litter dropping is happening anyway and biodegradation does not take place instantaneously, as any responsible person will realise. I believe that this is a realistic approach to the problem.
The second argument relates to the plastics industry, which has developed recycling techniques. It believes that manufacturing waste of biodegradable materials is not recyclable and that used materials which have been recovered cannot be recycled. That is partially true, but it ignores the fact that such plastics derive from oil. Although recycling is a welcome effort to improve oil usage, the fact remains that we are talking about a finite resource being used for its primary function for perhaps
802
five or 10 minutes. It seems absurd that we use the container for those five or 10 minutes but that it will lie in or on the ground for five or 50 years.
The third argument relates to disposal. Biodegradable materials are less stable as landfill materials where future buildings may be constructed. That is a short-sighted argument. The fact is that we are desperately short of landfill sites in this country. We cannot go on for ever with that method of disposal. We need to look at alternatives. Primarily, that will be incineration, for which biodegradable materials are well suited.
Advances in science now mean that totally biodegradable materials are available, or will soon become available. They are often made of plant material. Paper and cardboard are long established but usually need to be coated with a film to ensure adequate protection of the food. Such a film is usually a plastic, such as polythene, which is not biodegradable. Furthermore, it prevents penetration by water and micro-organisms to the paper or card. It must also be realised that some 80 per cent. of packaging board is recycled material, anyway. Wimpy has ceased to use polystyrene packaging. It has introduced cardboard. Kentucky Fried Chicken tells us that 80 per cent. of its range of packaging will soon be described as biodegradable. Both organisations, and others looking into it, deserve credit for that move.
Perhaps one of the most exciting products coming on to the market is Biopol, a plastic derived from a glucose feedstock, not from oil. As such, it is totally biodegradable. The feedstock is totally renewable and replenishable, often by the economies of the Third world, as well as by European agriculture. Production costs are still high, but it is anticipated that, as output increases, costs will reduce considerably.
Biopol can be used as a coating film for paper and card. There are other products now being developed which are totally biodegradable, either as a container themselves or as a film coating. It cannot be denied that costs are much higher than for styrofoam or polythene or the other plastics, but it is rapidly becoming recognised, both in this House and outside, that if we are to take care of our environment and of our finite oil resources we have to accept the costs. In any case, we pay what is often a n exorbitant amount for a glorified hamburger. A penny or two more on the packaging is of little significance.
Much as I would wish it otherwise, this is not a trail-blazing Bill. The state legislature of Minneapolis has already started down the same road, and others are looking closely at it. I hope very much that the House will ensure that Britain is not far behind.
We cannot abdicate our responsibility in this area. Public opinion is quite rightly focused on litter, on the visual and physical environment and on the use of the earth's scarce resources. There is no single answer, but I believe that my Bill will not only do something about the litter problem in areas where collection is unrealistic but that it will also stimulate the use of renewable resources in today's throw-away world.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Paice, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. James Cran, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Porter and Mrs. Gillian Shephard.

Take Away Food (Biodegradable Packaging)
  TAKE AWAY FOOD (BIODEGRADABLE PACKAGING)
  Mr. James Paice accordingly presented a Bill to require food sold as 'take away' to be packaged in materials which shall be biodegradable and for connected purposes, And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
Opposition Day
  11TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Inner Cities
    3.39 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns this Government's total neglect of the inner city areas of Britain which has led to a reduction in investment, a decline in the quality of housing and schools, a deterioration in adequate health care, an increase in poverty and a growth in crime; and therefore calls upon the Government to work in partnership with local authorities, to ensure the increases in both private investment and public enterprise which inner cities so desperately need.
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hattersley: I have written to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister apologising for the fact that, before the debate is over, I must leave for the inner city of Birmingham which in part I represent. I offer a general apology to the House for my absence later, as well as offering it to you personally and to the Minister.
    Two years ago, on the stairs inside Downing street, the prime Minister promised action on the inner cities—a sudden and uncharacteristic enthusiasm that came after eight years of wilful and deliberate neglect. For a moment, it seemed that the Prime Minister had at last accepted her duty to be Prime Minister of all the country, but our hopes were confounded. Life in the inner cities continues to deteriorate relative to life in the rest of the United Kingdom, and sometimes even in absolute terms. It deteriorates because the Government's approach to the inner cities reflects all the inadequacies of modern Conservatism.
    Tory inner-city policy is based on bone-headed Conservative dogma. Public expenditure is cut when it should be increased; market forces are expected to provide results that they are incapable of producing; public enterprise is stifled when it should be encouraged. Tory inner-city policy is autocratic. Decisions that would best be taken locally are imposed by Whitehall, and initiatives that should be organised in partnership with those who live in and represent the inner cities are exclusively taken and managed by bureaucrats.
    Tory inner-city policy shows contempt for genuine racial equality. Most of the black and Asian British live and work in inner cities. At best, the Government patronise those British citizens and at worst they discriminate against them. They think of them as a problem to be contained, not as men and women who should be given a fair share of national resources.
    Eight years ago, we debated Lord Scarman's judgment on inner-city policy. In that debate the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord Whitelaw, described the need to allocate resources to disadvantaged groups but he refused to promise that the resources that he regarded as necessary would be provided. It was a wise precaution. Paragraph 6.32 of the Scarman Report was explicit:
    "It is clear from the evidence of ethnic minority deprivation … that, if the balance of racial disadvantage is to be redressed, as it must be, positive action is required."

    805
    The Labour party gave unqualified support to that recommendation. On behalf of the Labour party I used these words: we do not ask for the black and Asian British
    "to be given better employment prospects than their white contemporaries. I simply ask that they be given the same prospects and opportunities. To achieve that end special action is needed."—[Official Report, 10 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 1012.]
    To achieve that end, special action is needed. We believed that in 1981 and we believe it today.
    Tory inner-city policy is above all else cynical. It is targeted not on the needs of inner cities themselves but on the requirements of Conservative party public relations, intended to soften the callous image with the illusion of compassion. Anyone who doubts that judgment need do no more than examine the wholly bogus announcement of the so-called "Action for Cities". That fraudulent prospectus, published over a year ago, was advertised as a programme that would invest £3 billion in the inner cities. Closer examination shows that the initiative provided £100 million of new investment, 5 per cent. of the total that the Government claimed. The rest was old money, dressed up to look like new. In fact, over the 10 years of Conservative Government, the inner cities have lost, rather than gained, public investment and public spending. Between 1981 and 1987, the seven urban programme partnership areas received £770 million in partnership money; at the same time, they lost £850 million in rate support grant.
    I suspect that the Government will attempt to justify these reductions by claiming that the emphasis of their inner-city policy has shifted from social expenditure to economic regeneration. In a moment, I want to examine the outcome of that regeneration policy, on the terms and against the criteria which the Government choose. One thing is absolutely clear: the inner cities are in desperate need of increased public expenditure—on new houses and the repair of old ones, on new schools and additional teachers in them, and on hospitals and amenities. Until that money is spent, the quality of life in the inner cities will continue to deteriorate. What is more, industrial investment will not be made in areas of visible dereliction, yet the Government continue to reduce the quality of life and increase the obvious dereliction in the inner cities.
    I adduce one example, from my experience in the inner city of Birmingham. For 10 years, Government policy on the renovation and improvement of houses has, at each state of its revision and development, made it more difficult for money to be spent on improving inner-city domestic property. There is no doubt, as I know to my cost from wrestling with the new proposals with the Birmingham corporation and the residents of my constituency, that the latest proposals for improvement grants will make it more difficult than ever before for inner-city dwellers to receive the money which makes their houses habitable.
    I do not suggest for a minute that the problems of the inner cities are solely the products of Conservative policy. They are largely the product of history. The industries which once made the inner cities prosperous either no longer exist or have changed their form. Small companies have been replaced by large, and the largest companies have developed on sites which are at the margins of, or outside, the cities. The large houses which once were owned by prosperous inner-city families have been broken
    806
    down into multiple occupation. A cumulative deterioration has set in which makes the inner cities a unique problem.
    The inner cities are unique not because they suffer from disadvantages which are unknown outside them; they are unique because all the known disadvantages—unemployment, inadequate housing, increased crime, shortage of services and amenities—are to be found within them. Because all these disadvantages are concentrated within the same area, they breed off each other and multiply.
    This concentration of disadvantage can be counteracted only by Government action, and that action has not been taken. In the time available to me in this short debate, I propose to deal with only four of the causes of inner-city crisis, beginning with the first essential requirement putting the iner cities back to work. That was the promise of the Government's inner-city initiatives, and that promise has been broken.
    If the promise had been kept, unemployment in the inner city would have fallen at a faster rate than national unemployment, but during the past seven years unemployment in the inner cities has fallen 6 per cent. more slowly than it has in the economy as a whole. The reason is clear: the Government believe that the market, timidly influenced by marginal financial incentives, can solve the inner cities' problems. It was the market that caused the inner cities' problems, and only direct intervention can solve them.
    This is demonstrated by the results of the urban development grant—the city grant. The inner cities need jobs that provide employment for unemployed men and women who live there, yet of the permanent jobs assisted by urban development grants, only 25 per cent. were new to the national economy. The rest were old jobs, which had been relocated to the inner cities and had, in general, brought their old employees with them. Only 18 per cent. of the UDG jobs were taken by men and women who had been unemployed previously. If the UDG has done little or nothing to help inner-city unemployment, that is at least better than the results of the urban development corporations. They have driven traditional jobs, the jobs that employ local residents, out of the areas, just as they have driven out the traditional residents.
    I take my example from London. The London Docklands development corporation has forced 84 firms to relocate out of the area—forced them by the use of the compulsory purchase order, which the LDDC is able to operate from an autocratic position with an authority that no local government institution would be allowed to employ. The new businesses that are replacing those companies forced out of London docklands have not provided employment for displaced local residents. The Tower Hamlets example is particularly revealing. Before the development of the corporation, firms in the borough employed 35 per cent. of their work force from residents of the borough. New firms that arrived after 1982 employ only 13 per cent. of local labour. It is not surprising that London docklands boroughs now account for an increasing proportion of London's unemployed. The net result of Government policy has been quite opposite to the results that they have prophesied and claimed.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: For eight years, I was a councillor with the London borough of Lewisham, one of the riparian boroughs that made up the Docklands

    807
    Joint Committee, between 1974 and 1981. In those seven years, how many new houses and jobs did that committee bring to the docklands area?
    Mr. Hattersley: A great many more than have been brought to it since then. I bow to, and am deeply impressed by, the hon. Gentleman's wide experience of these matters. If he thinks I am wrong in what I have just asserted, he had better say so. If he thinks that the LDDC is not bringing in companies that do not employ local labour, he had better say so. If the figures produced by the development corporation, which show that most of the new jobs are bringing in men and women from outside, are wrong, he had better say so.
    Mr. Bennett: My question, which the right hon. Gentleman clearly heard, was how many houses and how many jobs the Docklands Joint Committee brought into being between 1974 and 1981. The simple answer is that it sat and talked and did nothing.
    Mr. Hattersley: Nobody accepts that for a second. More important than that, it did not drive out jobs. I repeat my contention that, on the evidence provided by the LDDC itself, it is effectively driving jobs out of the docklands boroughs.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Docklands Joint Committee produced a strategic plan, which in my constituency would have meant that some 15,000 to 20,000 people would have been housed in publicly owned housing on land that has now largely been sold off to private developers? Furthermore, of the additional 20,000 jobs in the LDDC area, about which the Government boast, 15,000 are brought in from outside, with a net loss of 6,000 jobs over the whole area. Does that not show that the LDDC is not serving the needs of local people?
    Mr. Hattersley: It shows more than that. It shows one of the more unsavoury aspects of Conservative party tactics. When it was obsessed with private enterprise taking over these matters, and with giving private enterprise authoritarian powers by creating the LDDC, it thought it wise to abuse the institutions that were to be replaced. That is the normal technique of Conservative policy, which shows the shabby nature of its policies and attitudes, as well as their failure, which I continue to describe simply by relying on the figures.
    Mr. Tony Favell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: Not now, but I will give way in a moment.
    The jobs that the urban development corporation is providing for inner-city residents are almost invariably the jobs that those residents least want. The London Docklands development corporation, after much pressure from the boroughs, has now agreed that 4 per cent. of the new jobs in its area should be geared to the needs and attract local residents. That total is disgracefully inadequate. The jobs themselves are likely to be still more inadequate. A report into Canary wharf concluded that most of the new jobs created by the corporation would be
    808
    part-time low-paid and concerned with cleaning and catering. It is not surprising that the LDDC chose to suppress that report rather than allow it to be published.
    The epitaph on the Government's record on creating jobs in inner cities is provided by the unemployment statistics in the 44 inner-city authorities for which comprehensive figures are available. In only 14 of the 44 authorities did employment improve as compared with the national average. In four, the numbers of unemployed were higher in absolute terms than when the Government came to power.
    The second task that the Government set themselves was to improve housing conditions in the inner cities. Housing conditions have deteriorated. During the last six years for which figures are available, homelessness has increased in the programme authority by an average of 63 per cent., outstripping the national increase in homelessness by 14 per cent. The total stock of council housing has fallen by almost 2 per cent. That reduction is a direct product of Government policies—their refusal to allow councils to build the homes which were necessary to replace those which were sold. The private rented accommodation which has been built in the inner cities, particularly in London, is wildly beyond the means of the traditional inner-city family. For the typical low-income family to be decently housed, we need a programme of sustained municipal building. The Government will not provide it. They positively obstruct it because they are blinded by dogma to the real needs of the people.
    The third need of the inner cities—both in terms of the lives of the men and women who live there and as an inducement to new industry to move into those areas—is a reduction in inner-city crime. Since the Government were elected, the whole country has been swamped by a crime wave of record proportion. The statistics of crime in the inner cities over the past 10 years is a savage indictment of Government policy, for much of the blame must lie with a Government who allow the acceleration of inner-city unemployment, cause the deterioration of inner-city housing, and, by their so-called social services review, deepen and extend inner-city poverty.
    Anyone who doubts the relationship between deprivation and crime ought to read again Lord Scarman's report, which said:
    "There can be no doubt"
    that it is
    "a factor in the complex conditions which lie at the root" of inner-city crime. The Government are responsible for those conditions and they must take responsibility for the crime which they create—crime of which the inner-city families are overwhelmingly innocent victims.
    Let me remind the Government of the record. In the west midlands police division, which includes my constituency in the inner city of Birmingham, burglaries have increased by 49 per cent. since 1980 and wounding with intent has gone up 63 per cent. Assault on the person has increased by 75 per cent. That pattern is reproduced throughout the inner cities of Great Britain. In the past 10 years, recorded crime has grown by 47 per cent. in central Manchester. The incidence of recorded violent crime in central Leeds was up a staggering 89 per cent. for the first three months of this year, compared with the first three months of 1979. In central London, the figures are equally bad.
    The Government came to power promising to crack down on crime and saying that they would combat and

    809
    overcome crime in inner cities. In Hackney, crime has increased by 50 per cent., in Lambeth by 40 per cent. and in Southwark by 30 per cent. No one doubts that poverty and despair breed crime. That is not to condone the increases but to explain them, and to condemn the Government on whom the responsibility, indeed the blame, for increasing crime figures must fall.
    Fourthly, a year ago, the Government promised improved inner-city education. I hope that the Minister will tell us what form that improvement in inner-city education is to take. Is it suggested that opting out of the state system will help the inner-city schools? It will do quite the opposite. Inner-city schools will become the poor and neglected relatives of their suburban neighbours. Is it suggested that city technology colleges will help the inner cities? The nearest CTC to the inner city I represent is located in Solihull. In that borough, it is unlikely to do much to combat the problems with which CTCs are said to deal.
    Education in the inner cities is expensive. There is a great need for extra facilities, nursery places, English as a second language teaching and special needs classes. The Government's record of expenditure on education budgets can be summed up in a single sentence. They abolished the Inner London education authority for spending too much on inner-city education. That is the true reflection of Government policy. They have adopted that policy and they have failed to help the inner cities because they do not care about them or understand them and because they are ideologically incapable of advancing policies that meet their needs.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend probably knows that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is dealing with teacher shortages. In the words of the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, the shortages are "catastrophic". It is difficult to get Conservative Members even to admit that there are teacher shortages; they do not for a moment admit that there are teacher shortages on a grand scale in ILEA, which they are trying to abolish.
    Mr. Hattersley: I say with the greatest affection for my hon. Friend, who represents the constituency in which I was born and brought up, that it seems a long time since he first made that point to me and I made a dangerous point in reply. I will make it again, notwithstanding his great experience of education and education trade unions. I believe, as he may believe too, that some special inducement must be made to bring teachers into the areas where teaching is most difficult. We are prepared to spend extra money in some schools on persuading teachers to spend time teaching Latin and Greek to small groups of boys and girls, so we should be prepared to spend extra money on persuading more teachers into the areas of greatest need to teach English as a second language to boys and girls and to deal with other special difficulties.
    I sometimes get into trouble with my hon. Friend's union when I make that point, but I have made the point strongly and I will go on arguing for it, not to interfere with proper wage negotiations with teachers, but to defend what is necessary to help the people who teach, who want to help and who need help. They can be enabled to help only if we have a pay structure that reflects the particular problems of teaching in the central areas.
    Mr. Favell: As a third native of Sheffield, perhaps I should join the party. We have heard at great length an attack on the Government's policies for dealing with the inner cities, but we have not heard one word about the Labour party's policies, apart from building more council housing and providing more social security. We have heard no other word of remedy from the Labour party.
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is about to hear more than one word on our policies in the next five or six minutes. He and his party's Front Bench must understand that they have been in power for 10 years and that the whole focus of political debate for the next two or two and a half years will be on the inadequacies and failures of the Government's policies over the past 10 years. The scare stories about what has happened, from the Zinoviev letter to the groundnut scheme, will not work any longer. The Government will be judged by their record, and I have no doubt what the judgment will be.
    To return to my previous point, the Government are, by their very nature, incapable of meeting the needs of the inner cities. I believe that the Prime Minister herself believes that the problems of the inner cities are intractable and are a necessary part of the divided society, which she positively welcomes and which she has done much to create. The Secretary of State for Social Security no doubt regards inner-city residents as the undeserving poor—the families who buy television sets when they have no right to expect the entertainment enjoyed by their more prosperous contemporaries. He will say of the inner cities that they are not so much poor as unequal. Unequal they certainly are, but other countries have tried to reduce that inequality, and have succeeded.
    All our partners in Europe are taking positive steps to provide the jobs, the houses and the services that the inner cities need, and so is America. Those initiatives, which even in America involve a key role for public initiative, have been described by the Prime Minister as "Marxist". I know that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has impertinently asked the Prime Minister whether she has ever read any Marx. That is a question of staggering naivety. The Prime Minister never shows any evidence of ever having read anything, so why should we think that she has picked out Marx while she has neglected everybody else? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Neville Chamberlain?"] By comparison, Neville Chamberlain was a paragon of erudition, culture, literature and understanding.
    The day will come when Government policy is based on something more respectable than prime ministerial ignorance and prime ministerial prejudice. That policy will be based not on dogma, but on an objective assessment of what can encourage the creation of jobs and the reduction in poverty. In consequence, it will be one of partnership. It will be a partnership between private investment and public enterprise; between national Government and local government; and between the people of the area and those agencies that are created to assist them. Partnership with local residents is essential.
    If the national Government pursue policies—ranging from discrimatory immigration laws to the pauperisation of the young unemployed—which disadvantage the inner cities, the Government must expect the people who live there to feel suspicious about the initiatives that the Government take. If the Government fail utterly to meet the problems of the inner cities, they must not be surprised

    811
    if the inner cities feel despair and if that despair leads to the crime and vandalism that further accelerate inner-city decline.
    Partnership has to be built around policies which are intended explicitly and specifically to help the people in the inner cities and the conditions that prevail there—not, for example, the inner-city landowners who are the only real beneficiaries of the enterprise zone scheme. We cannot afford silly little Government diktats that prevent local councils from insisting that inner-city firms provide employment for inner-city residents. We cannot afford stupid limitations on assistance to co-operatives and common ownership projects, when such new, local, small enterprises are exactly what the inner cities need. Above all, we cannot afford a doctrinal refusal to invest in inner-city services and inner-city infrastructure.
    I vividly recall a meeting with the Birmingham chamber of commerce—a group of men and women who even in a good year would not want to see the return of a Labour Government. We were told by the Birmingham chamber of commerce that, if the Government did not show their faith in the inner cities by spending their money there, nothing would induce private enterprise to create the confidence that would enable them to provide the essential investment. The inner cities will not prosper while they are left to themselves and to the market—and that, I fear, means that they will not prosper until another Government are elected.
    4.8 pm
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `welcomes recent falls in unemployment in the inner cities and the increasing level of investment in their regeneration; notes with approval the growing commitment of the private sector and the improved partnership between the private sector, voluntary organisations and central and local government in tackling inner city problems; and looks forward to continued progress under Action for Cities and other programmes designed to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom share fully in the increasing prosperity of the nation as a whole.'
    This is the second debate in little more than a week which suggests that the Opposition have become the victims of their own propaganda. Last week we had a debate on the alleged "decline" in manufacturing industry. About the only fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whom I am sorry not to see in his place today, could produce in support of his claim was that, although manufacturing investment was rising strongly, as he was forced to acknowledge, it was still marginally lower than in 1979. In my response I acknowledged that he had a small, modest point, and advised him to use it while he could because I did not think that he could depend on it much longer. I am glad to be able to tell the House that this morning we published the final estimates for the value of capital investment in manufacturing in 1988, and they show that manufacturing industry is not just higher than it was in 1979 but higher than the previous record figure.
    The Opposition's motion contains the even more flimsy charge of total neglect of inner cities. Not surprisingly, the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not remotely substantiate or sustain that charge. Nor could it conceivably have
    812
    done so, as no previous Government have ever brought together such a comprehensive range of programmes as those which make up "Action for Cities" and its component parts in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. No previous Government have given the problem of urban regeneration so much emphasis by bringing together programmes in that way, or put so many resources behind measures to tackle the problem.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £36 million that was provided when the "Action for Cities" campaign was launched in March 1988 as the total expenditure on the programmes of which it consisted. One year later, when I launched the reporting document, "Progress on Cities", about two and a half months ago, I was able to say that the estimate for those same programmes had risen to about £3·5 billion. It had risen by £0·5 billion between 1988 and 1989—far more than would have been needed to maintain the value of those programmes in real terms. If that is to be described as neglect, I can think of quite a few others who would like a share of it.
    Mr. Richard Caborn: What was the reduction in the rate support grant for major cities in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister contrast that with the small injection of capital to which he has referred?
    Mr. Newton: We have directed the pattern of Government expenditure to local authorities and others, including urban development corporations, in a way that has markedly increased the impact of those programmes and their effect on the ground.
    What is even clearer than the expenditure statistics that I have given in overall terms is the evidence of what is happening not only with physical regeneration and redevelopment—we heard little about that from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—but with the level of unemployment. In the 57 urban programme areas—I go a little wider than some of the right hon. Gentleman's statistics—unemployment has fallen by one third in the two years to March 1989, and by not far short of a quarter in the past year alone. In the past year, too, there has been a particularly encouraging drop in long-term unemployment—that is, those out of work for six months or more —which is one of the hallmarks of far too much inner-city unemployment.
    In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about variations in different parts of the country, I will give him the facts as stated in last week's announcement of a further fall in unemployment. They put into a slightly different perspective some of what he said about the pace at which unemployment is falling in different parts of the country. The facts are as follows:
    "All regions in the United Kingdom have shared in the downward trend in unemployment with the west midlands and Wales experiencing the biggest reductions over the past year followed by Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west and the north. Within this total long-term unemployment has been falling faster than unemployment generally and in January the number of long-term unemployed was the lowest for more than six years."
    That is the perspective in which the right hon. Gentleman's remarks should be considered.
    Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is happening on Merseyside? He cannot put the whole of the north-west together. What is actually happening on Merseyside?
    Mr. Newton: I visit Merseyside, the north-west, the north and the west midlands fairly frequently. Unemployment is falling in all parts of the country and the level of confidence and optimism is rising.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister simply give us the figures which meet or do not meet my point? For the promises made two years ago to be met, unemployment in the inner cities should be falling more rapidly than elsewhere. The Minister has given figures for Scotland, the west midlands and the north of England, but the west midlands is not one big inner city. What is the unemployment figure in the inner cities? Is it not the figure that I gave? Is not the Minister trying to confound the issue with irrelevant alternatives?
    Mr. Newton: I am trying to put into perspective some of the figures that the right hon. Gentleman sought to use about the pattern of unemployment. It has admittedly and undoubtedly taken a considerable amount of time to achieve the progress that we wish to see with this particularly intractable part of the unemployment problem.
    Some of the more satisfactory trends in inner-city unemployment can be seen in areas where the Government have established specifically targeted task forces to help overcome problems in three or four wards of a city. A disturbing aspect of the Labour party's recent policy document, which was the exact obverse of one of the right hon. Gentleman's implications, was the apparent desire to get away from carefully targeted measures aimed at specific pockets of unemployment and difficulty which exist in places such as Birmingham or Bristol against the background of fairly widespread prosperity for the city as a whole. That is particularly true in Bristol.
    The Government's targeted approach, which is beginning to be seen coming through in some of the figures —I make no grander claim than that—reflects the approach that we have tried to adopt to inner-city problems. The continuing fall in unemployment—as shown in the figures announced last week, which accompanied the press release from which I quoted a few moments ago—gives us all further encouragement.
    What was most striking about the speech of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not its variance with what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box—that is something that we expect and could sensibly predict—but its variance with what is said around the country by those who have looked at what is happening in our cities and those involved in local government and in the industrial and commercial life of our cities.
    I could have brought a very substantial sheaf of documents relating to these matters to the Chamber today. Instead, I have culled a few which I felt it might be sensible to refer to the House. The managing director of the Newcastle Chronicle and Journal, at the north-east business man of the year dinner earlier this year, which I attended, said:
    "There is a renewed pride in what is being achieved. The fundamental change of attitude throughout the region over the past 2 or 3 years is miraculous. We have moved from being a depressed, depressing and defeatist area to one which wants to take on the world."
    I refer also to a special report published in The Times last autumn about regional developments generally. Its sub-heading read:
    814
    "Improvements in the national economy have given Britain's poorer areas an opportunity they are determined to use … And … with government help, they are seeing results."
    Just before Christmas The Sunday Times reported:
    "Sheffield set to carve role for tomorrow."
    I am glad to see hon. Members who represent Sheffield constituencies present in the Chamber today. After referring to what had been happening in Sheffield, the article continued
    "Even more strikingly,"
    this new feeling
    "has trickled down to the level of the Sheffielder-in-the-street. It was hard to find anyone last week who was not anxious to stress the city's exciting future."
    Mr. Flannery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I was in Sheffield a week or two ago and everyone to whom I spoke voiced the same view as that expressed in The Sunday Times to which I have just referred.
    Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is not telling the full story. The reality is that the Government left the east end of Sheffield a desert—it was so still and quiet. There has been an upsurge at the prospect of the student games coming to Sheffield in a couple of years' time. We are pleading with the Government to give us more money for that. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), could tell the right hon. Gentleman a lot more about Sheffield's lack of money and its urgent requests for more from the Government.
    Mr. Newton: No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman.
    Sheffield's pride in being able to stage the student games reflects its change in mood and confidence, which is also reflected in the work of the urban development corporation and plans that it has for the lower Don valley, in what the local authorities and the local business men, including those in the chamber of commerce, are achieving through partnership, and in the fact that there is a much stronger partnership now between the public and private sector in Sheffield than was ever the case two or three years ago.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked about Merseyside. I will come closer to the immediate situation there by referring to a substantial supplement on Liverpool in The Times yesterday, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt saw, headed "Panorama of growing prosperity" and subheaded:
    "As Liverpool toasts its Cup Final victory, it is also celebrating an economic turnaround which will enable the city to enter the 1990s with its confidence restored".
    Another subheading reads:
    "How Merseyside turned optimism to realism and won the confidence of industry and new investment".
    Perhaps most telling of all is a quote from the Labour leader of Liverpool city council, Keva Coombes
    "I am convinced that we have more reason to be optimistic now than for many years".
    He is then reported as saying that:
    "there was also now a more pragmatic approach to working together between the council and central government agencies."
    Finally, with regard to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I have with me the foreword to a document recently published by Birmingham city council called,

    815
    "Birmingham economic strategy", signed by the Labour chairman of the economic development committee, Councillor Albert Bore, which says:
    "There are many indications that Birmingham is regaining its competitive edge in many of the manufacturing sectors in which it was previously world famous. It is also going to become one of Europe's major visitor destinations for business, culture and leisure in the 1990s."
    Another Birmingham city council publication, "The Birmingham Investment", published within the past month or so, says:
    "Look around the city and you will see evidence of new investment and new development everywhere."
    This is the city that the right hon. Gentleman was describing in such gloomy and depressing terms no more than 10 minutes ago. It goes on:
    "From more than £500 million of new retail and leisure developments—including Britain's national indoor arena—to the new industrial and office property developments that are rising all over the city."
    We are told:
    "Listen to the city's new business community, and you will discover a new mood of confidence and optimism among thousands of local companies."
    That is not a Minister talking, but Birmingham city council.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
    Mr. Newton: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman may wish to stop me, but I will continue for a moment.
    The publication goes on:
    "Over the last few years a series of investments has changed the whole landscape of business property in Birmingham … Birmingham Heartlands, for example, has brought the city together with 5 major developers in a unique inner city regeneration programme."
    Mr. Grocott: The Minister is talking in glowing terms about new developments. Will he confirm the fundamental point that any recovery taking place in the west midlands in general or in Birmingham in particular is recovery from the devastation caused by the Conservatives as a deliberate instrument of economic policy in the early 1980s? Let us not overlook the question of the quality of jobs. In the west midlands, for instance, in engineering alone the number of apprenticeships, according to official Government figures, is 54 per cent. of what it was in 1979. Is that not a dreadful indictment of the Government?
    Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to confirm the hon. Gentleman's observations of the causes and position from which industry in Birmingham and the west midlands is recovering, but let us consider the statistics relating to the motor car industry—historically a source of great importance to the midlands. The decline in that industry set in during the period of the Labour Government—aggravated, admittedly, in the early 1980s by a world recession. The industry is now recovering. Last year, the production of motor vehicles in Britain exceeded the 1978 level—[Interruption.] The decline started during the 1970s. It did not suddenly start in 1979. The level of motor car production has now exceeded the 1978 level because, for the first time in a decade, the industry is moving up and not down.
    Mr. Hattersley: I remind the Minister that the debate is explicitly and specifically about inner cities. Whether his facts are right or wrong, to talk about the prosperity of a
    816
    whole region is wholly irrelevant—[Interruption.] The Minister has hardly said a word about the inner cities since his opening remarks.
    The idea that the tourist attraction that Birmingham is becoming, and I hope will increasingly become, will provide any jobs in the inner city of Birmingham is ridiculous. In the bit of the inner city that I represent, the improvement in the motor industry will have no effect whatever. The debate is designed to focus attention on specific problems. For the Minister to talk in such general terms shows that he does not even know what the inner cities are.
    Mr. Newton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would rather I did not give way, as I have been doing in line with the normal courtesies of the House. My last observations were in response to the intervention of his hon. Friend the member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). Does the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook really believe that the vehicle industry has nothing to do with the inner cities? Only a fortnight ago I was at what is now Leyland-DAF Vehicles, what used to be Freight Rover, in inner city Birmingham, one of the areas in which we have a task force—[Interruption.] It is important in the area in which it is located. That firm is now embarking on a modernisation, expansion and training programme to ensure that the jobs that it is creating go to the people who live around the factory. That is the importance of some of these developments. If Opposition Members do not appreciate that, they should study some of the issues involved.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the task force experience in Leicester? Three years ago, amid a great fanfare, the Leicester task force was set up in Highfields. This year, in a sneaky letter to me and to other Leicester Members, it was announced that the task force was to close because of its failure. Will the Minister explain why that task force closed in Leicester?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is not merely paraphrasing the letter that was written at the time but is turning it on its head. The point made in it was that the economic and employment situation in Leicester, including Highfields, had improved to a significant extent during the life of the task force, that a number of development funds and other activities had been set in hand which, in our view, would have a continuing beneficial effect, and that we felt it right to use the resource represented by task forces in areas where the problems are greater than those of that part of Leicester. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at the same time as I announced the winding down of task force programmes in Leicester, Wolverhampton and Preston between March and the end of the year, I announced new task forces, which are very much welcomed by the local authorities involved, in Granby and Toxteth in Liverpool, in Bradford and in Lewisham. Those areas all have significant problems which I believe that the task forces can help to overcome.
    If the picture painted by the Opposition motion is unrecognisable in the real world, no right hon. or hon. Member would disguise the fact that there is still much more to do in pressing ahead with the programmes and initiatives to tackle inner-city problems. That is not surprising. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was

    817
    very fair in acknowledging that the problems of inner cities did not suddenly come on to the scene in 1979 or in the early 1980s but that their causes are deep-seated and go back at least one generation—some would argue, longer than that—and just as their roots go back a long way, so it will take time to overcome them fully.
    Today I seek to describe the progress being made in overcoming problems which have been encountered over decades and even for generations. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the causes are complex. The most obvious among them is the failure to come to grips with the pattern of industrial change over a long period and instead to pretend that it was not happening by disguising it in various ways, with the result that the process of adjustment was even more difficult than it needed to be. I should have made that point in particular to the hon. Member for The Wrekin if he were still in his place.
    Whatever view is taken of the causes of industrial change, old industries close, leaving derelict sites which detract from the environment and causing a loss of income to the community which is reflected in declining property standards and falling land values. Too often, it also means that younger, more economically active people leave the area to work elsewhere, which in turn breeds a loss of community pride. Together, those factors create a depressing physical environment which has other adverse social and economic effects.
    Mr. Heffer: There is no question but that there has been industrial change and that it is continuing, but does not that create a need for the Government to intervene? If there is decline in one or two industries, or in a whole series of them, surely the Government must have policies, plans and concepts for dealing with workers who are left high and dry and unemployed. Have not the Government failed to do anything serious about developing alternatives to deal with industrial change?
    Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that that is true. The hon. Gentleman may wish that it had proved possible in some cases to avoid some of the transitional difficulties which arise in moving from one pattern of industry to another, but I hope that he agrees that one of the most notable features of the regional economy currently—although the north-east is the most striking example, this can be seen in the north-west as well—is the increasing growth of new industries, not least with the assistance of inward investment from overseas in creating electronics industries, rebuilding some important parts of motor car manufacturing and the like. Very often that is assisted by the kind of Government policy for which the hon. Gentleman calls. In his own region, assistance was recently given to Vauxhall for further investment at Ellesmere port, which will both safeguard existing jobs and create new employment in that part of Merseyside. That is just one of many examples that I could cite.
    As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to recognise, it follows from the complexity and the deep-seated nature of the problems that there can be no simple or overnight solution to inner-city decline. It requires a range of measures tailored to deal with different aspects of the problem, and carried through with a sustained and determined approach over a number of years. That is precisely what we have sought to bring about through the "Action for Cities" programme.
    818
    I emphasise that the Government's approach starts from the recognition that the first essential is a prosperous national economy. The whole House knows—certainly the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows it well from his experience in the last Labour Government—that regional resurgence and inner-city regeneration cannot be created on the back of the national economic stagnation and relative economic decline that we saw in the 1970s. The foundation of what we seek to achieve in the inner cities is what we have already achieved for the country as a whole —sustained economic growth such as has not been seen since the war.
    It is on that foundation that we have built and are pressing forward the range of programmes and initiatives to which I referred briefly earlier in my speech. They cover housing, with the Estate Action programme involving tenants in the management and improvement of their homes. They provide a substantial increase in the money available to housing associations through the Housing Corporation and through local authorities. They cover a large expansion in training programmes, both to encourage enterprise—through, for instance, support for small firms—and to help people back into work.
    The programmes cover matters that the hon. Member for Walton has just raised, with support for inner city business—including regional selective assistance—and a variety of grants for small firms, as well as the work of the English Industrial Estates Corporation. They cover a substantial programme of derelict land reclamation, and —this comes closer to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by other hon. Members in interventions—they cover the urban programme, including city grants, and the work of the urban development corporations, which together are receiving a substantial increase in the coming year.
    The programmes also cover the task forces to which I referred—in some 16 locations up and down the country —and the co-ordinated work of the city action teams, bringing together the work of various Government Departments. They cover the safer cities campaign, which is directed strongly towards the crime problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that he did not tell us about the decrease in a number of important elements in the crime figures last year. No one disputes that substantial increases in crime have occurred—again, over a period going back well before 1979—but last year, according to the metropolitan and non-metropolitan force figures, there was a decrease in recorded notifiable offences of 11·3 per cent. in the west Midlands, 4·5 per cent. in West Yorkshire, just over 6·5 per cent. on Merseyside some 6·5 per cent. in Northumbria, more than 13 per cent. in South Yorkshire and nearly 8 per cent. in Greater Manchester.
    No one is suggesting that further progress is not needed in tackling such problems. I merely ask the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friends to recognise that in many important respects—and, I believe, to a significant extent as a result of the approach that the Government have adopted and the wide range of initiatives brought together in the "Action for Cities" programme—progress is now being made in dealing with some of the problems that have proved intractable for Governments of both parties over a long period.
    All the initiatives that I have mentioned are being pressed forward continuously. In March, when "Progress on Cities" was published, we announced a number of new

    819
    task force projects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced the building up of his compacts initiative to improve opportunities for inner-city youngsters to build links with and get jobs in local firms. That is going on in a consistent drive all the time.
    Today, for example, we are announcing an important agreement between English Estates and London Industrial to co-operate in a joint venture for a substantial programme to provide managed work space in inner-city areas of London. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), whom I am delighted to see here, has today announced two new city grants totalling more than half a million pounds towards the construction of industrial units on the Ketley business park in the Wrekin and—this will interest the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I hope—towards the cost of the refurbishment and conversion of a 160,000 sq ft factory into industrial units in Huyton in the borough of Knowsley.
    Those are just further examples of practical steps being taken under the initiatives to which I have referred to tackle the sort of problems that we all acknowledge need to be tackled if we are successfully to overcome the long inner-city decline.
    As a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I will therefore emphasise only briefly three points that I believe to be of particular importance in considering what the Government have been seeking to do.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Newton: I think not. I have already taken up a good deal of the time of the House. I think that it would be sensible now to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his own contribution to the debate.
    The first point that I want to make about the way in which the Government programmes are organised and the results that they have achieved concerns the significantly greater involvement of the private sector in the regeneration of inner cities and in working together with local authorities to that end. Sheffield, to which I referred earlier, is a very good example—as is Birmingham, with the Heartlands scheme—but those examples are now being matched and modelled in many parts of the country with the development of business leadership teams, often involving a direct partnership between local authorities and the business community, such as the Wearside Opportunity, the Newcastle initiative, Teesside Tomorrow, and a number of others.
    That greater involvement of business, which is crucial to the real regeneration of the inner cities, is being assisted and supported by the way in which—this is what I had in mind in answering an intervention a few moments ago —the remodelling of some of the initiatives to which I referred in summarising the elements in the "Action for Cities" programme is very much directed to ensuring that Government money brings in substantial amounts of private sector investment alongside.
    The urban development corporation is a very good example. I will not use only the London Docklands development corporation because the gearing there is particularly high—between £8 and £10 of private money
    820
    coming in for every £1 of Government expenditure on the urban development corporation. That is well above the average, but even the average is about £4 of private sector money coming in behind every £1 of Government money and much the same ratio is true for city grant as well.
    It is important to understand the extent to which the Government's initiatives are bringing in other resources on a very large scale and that therefore the figures that we use —whether £3 billion for last year or £3·5 billion for this year—for the total Government spending on the inner-city programmes are a significant underestimate of the resources now coming into the cities to assist with their regeneration.
    The second point, on which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook touched, is the improvement, which I very much welcome, in the degree of co-operation and—the right hon. Gentleman also used the word—the partnership which is taking place between central and local Government. Many local authorities, for example, are becoming much more actively involved in the work of urban development corporations and of the Government's task forces and in co-operating not just with other agencies in Government but with the private sector and voluntary organisations. That is a very important part of the improvement in the scene that has occurred in the past few years and one that I very much welcome.
    The third point that I wish to emphasise is very much related to the points that have been made about the need to ensure that the benefits of all these programmes, including the work of the urban development corporations and the physical redevelopment that is taking place, accrue to the people who live in the inner-city areas. I do not accept the simple assessment that has been made in some quarters that the mere fact that docklands is being regenerated—to take an example that is frequently used —attracts people into the area and therefore can be seen as benefiting them as well is contrary to the aims of Government policy.
    Part of the problem of the inner cities, a point to which I referred earlier, has been the extent to which many of the young, dynamic, economically active people have left the inner cities over a long period, leaving behind only the deprived and the disadvantaged. It follows that part of the real long-term answer to inner city problems must be to recreate more balanced communities in the inner cities and therefore to attract back to them—
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Newton: No, I do not intend to give way now.
    We must attract back to the inner cities some of the groups who, historically, have left or been driven out. I make no apology for that.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Newton: No.
    Mr. Vaz rose—
    Mr. Newton: What is important—I very much welcome it—is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing through his training programmes, what the urban development corporations and others are doing through their programmes—not least those associated with Canary wharf—and not least what the Government's inner-city task forces are doing by developing what are called customised training projects,

    821
    involving the matching of local unemployed people with the training required to get them the jobs that are known already to exist and the employment that is required with local employers. That is an increasingly significant part of the inner-city policy.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way, for the reasons that I have already explained.
    That is, I repeat, an increasingly significant part of our inner city policy, and one to which we are determined to give greater emphasis.
    I have taken up a good deal of time, not least because I have sought to respond substantially to the interventions that have been made.
    Mr. Vaz: The Minister has not done so.
    Mr. Newton: Whether it is judged in terms of expenditure, the range and purpose of the programmes and the increasing results of the programmes—measured not just by what I say, but by what people are saying throughout the country, whether business leaders, or local government leaders and others—there is no way in which what is happening can credibly be presented, as the Opposition's motion seeks to present it, as a story of total neglect.
    Mr. Vaz: It is.
    Mr. Newton: It is a story of increasing success in spreading to all parts of the country the increasing prosperity that we have created for the nation as a whole. I invite the House to reject the motion and to pass the amendment.
    4.47 pm
    Mr. Robert Litherland: When we discuss the regeneration of the inner cities, we have to differentiate between myth and reality. The myth was perpetrated by the Prime Minister at the last general election when she said that the Government must get into the inner cities. That myth has been prolonged by Government propaganda. Glossy brochures have been distributed, illustrating proposed developments in the inner-city areas. There has been media coverage of visiting Ministers donning protective helmets and cutting tapes, trowel in hand, ready for action. They have posed and postulated in order to convince the electorate that all is well, that the inner cities are safe in their hands.
    That is the myth. The only people to benefit will be the developers and financiers and those with the yuppie mentality, enjoying their new "with it" accommodation in converted warehouses or posing in their new theme pubs. What, however, is the reality? In Manchester inner city, the commercial centre is surrounded on the periphery by real people with real problems. They have experienced the loss of some 25,000 jobs, mainly in manufacturing industry, since the early 1980s, creating an army of unemployed. There is still over 33 per cent. male unemployment in the inner cities. That is intensified in pockets where there is a concentration of ethnic minorities who, like the disabled, find it hard to get employment, unless in the low-paid service sector, doing menial tasks.
    In the inner city of Manchester, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.
    822
    Hattersley) said, there is a lower standard of living than in greater Manchester or north Cheshire. Before the changes in benefit in April 1988, 83,000 people were dependent on supplementary benefit. Those are the very people who have suffered an adverse effect in their meagre standard of living since then. A total of 18,000 have lost all housing benefit, and 45,000 now receive no help with their water rate bills. Then there are the children: 7,000 have been deprived of school meals. Because of social security changes, and especially because of the abolition of Department of Social Security grants and their replacement by the social fund, 50,000 people are worse off. Also, they have the spectre of the poll tax just over the horizon.
    Poverty is a stark reality in the inner city. It manifests itself in low birth weights, premature deaths and increased crime. A recent report by the city council on the impact of poverty shows what poverty really means:
    "Not being able to afford food. Over a third of households in poverty said they ran short of money to buy food. Falling into Debt. Over a half of households in poverty said that they had fallen seriously behind with payments during the previous year. A Cold Home. One third of households say there are times when they go without essential heating, and around half of them are in debt with fuel bills."
    That is the inner city in Manchester. In a so-called booming economy, the gap between the poor and the rich is widening. The few jobs created outside the bogus training schemes are mainly low-paid and part-time, with no job security. As the better-off receive tax handouts and the benefits of the poll tax, the poor in the inner cities are losing. They are the people who are left on the sidelines.
    Ethnic minority households suffer even worse. Their rate of unemployment is estimated at more than one and a half times that of white people. They have greater difficulty in obtaining work.
    There are only two growth industries. The first is the demolition contractor, smashing down the old, empty factories, like wolverines at a dead carcase. Those factories once provided jobs and dignity for the people of pride in their craft. The other growth industry is the loan shark, preying like a vulture on the misery of people. Again, what can we expect? That is private enterprise and will be welcomed by the Government, who cynically deceive the inner-city people that all is well but at the same time deprive them of meagre means so that they can line the pockets of their affluent friends and supporters.
    It is no use building luxury flats, marinas and theme pubs, and in Manchester fantasising about the G Mex Centre, mainly financed by public money, and the vast improvements to the Holiday inn, once the Midland hotel owned by British Rail, when very few of the people that I represent can afford the prices that would give them access to such places.
    Next time Ministers come to Manchester, they should visit the real people and see their standard of living, their poor housing conditions and the effect on a great city and its people of the Government draining it of financial resources. If Ministers have any conscience, they will riot sleep easily afterwards. The Prime Minister's words have rebounded in her face. She has no conception of life in the inner cities. She does not care, and she has betrayed the finest people in the country.
    4.54 pm
    Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: It gives me great pleasure to support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. The Government have achieved miracles in the resuscitation of the inner cities. Much of what I heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) represents a Birmingham that I do not recognise. I have lived there for 60 years; I was born, bred and educated in Birmingham. I served on the city council and the West Midlands council for 20 years. My father was a slum clergyman in a city centre mission, where I worked from my teens. I know my Birmingham, and I know the city centre.
    Birmingham's decline happened from the time of Sir Stafford Cripps, under the national Government. Giving assisted area status to every other part of the country was against the interests of the heartland of Britain. Industry was not allowed to build brick upon brick there until the Conservative Government got in and reversed that policy in 1979. The dictum of strengthening the weak weakened the strong in the west midlands, until the area had to be totally refurbished.
    Thanks to the actions of the Government, the picture is totally different. By January 1989, in England alone, inner-city unemployment had fallen by 26 per cent. and in Birmingham it had fallen by 23 per cent. No wonder the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook moved the motion in such a quiet tone and was so inhibited. The real massage from the inner cities is that they are alive and thriving under a combination of public and private enterprise and that they are economically successful. Many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman said were inaccurate. I saw the chamber of commerce not some time in the past, as he did, but last Friday, and it did not express any dissatisfaction. It was waiting to hear what the Secretary of State for Transport would say on inter-urban roads. He introduced a programme that will raise public investment in roads from £5 million to £12 billion. That will help the economic success of Birmingham and the west midlands.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about city training centres but he got the address wrong. The address is Kingshurst, Birmingham. It is a mere 100 yd or so outside the city boundary.
    We have a picture of increasing success. I am pleased that earlier today the House approved without argument the Third Reading of the Midland Metro Bill, which will lead to the investment of £1,000 million in the light electric railway system to link the towns lying between Wolverhampton and Birmingham on the line of the Wolverhampton low-level rail route. This will work wonders and green up an area which has been neglected in the past; it will environmentally help the city centres of all the so-called black country towns which lie along the route—and that is only part of the scheme.
    Following the advent of the national exhibition centre, we have approved and are building a conference—convention centre which will open in two or three years time. We are spending £147 million, which is coming partly from Europe, partly from the Government and partly from private enterprise. We are spending £240 million on a canalside leisure project. So, in Birmingham and the inner city, £1·6 billion-worth of building and investment is under way.
    824
    Everywhere, shopping schemes, factory schemes and units of commerce are being created in Birmingham, with a consequential shattering reduction in unemployment. Unemployment has almost ceased to be the major problem that it was in the past.
    We have spent about £90 million on Birmingham international airport, and another £80 million is to be spent on it, bringing business people from all over the world to our factories, convention centres and exhibition centres.
    Heartlands Birmingham, a city centre initiative chaired by a former illustrious colleague of ours, Sir Reginald Eyre—the former Member for Birmingham, Hall Green—is redeveloping more than 2,000 acres. That partnership was requested by the Labour-controlled city council of Birmingham; it is a partnership between the private and public sectors, involving a large amount of private enterprise money. This urban development authority was not in line with Government thinking on urban development corporations, one of which has been so successful in and around the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). Nevertheless, the initiative was allowed and is now in being.
    It is introducing phenomenal infrastructure. A new water link scheme on the canal was initiated this very week. When, in future, we discuss inner-city redevelopment we must bear in mind not only isolated spots of canal redevelopment but redevelopment throughout the country on canals that run through so many of our city centres in the midlands and the north. In Brum we have more canals than Venice, and I commend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy this complete urban renewal along canal frontages by means of environmental and commercial schemes.
    The one thing that Heartlands Birmingham would appreciate now, on top of the vast sums of money announced in the inter-urban road scheme, is finance for the Spline road, which will be needed to bring more factories and redevelopment into Heartlands. I should declare an interest as an adviser to PPG Industries—
    Mr. Litherland: Ah!
    Mr. Bevan: —a firm which has brought to the centre of Birmingham a project involving huge refurbishment of most of the land. It did the same in Pittsburgh, and it has invested £60 million in Wigan, not far from the area of Manchester represented by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) who has been making sedentary remarks. This firm has specialised, and has introduced private sector schemes of excellence everywhere. I hope that this redevelopment will continue.
    In addition to passing on to my right hon. Friend unstinted congratulations on the regeneration of our city, I recommend to him the adoption of a scheme of tax-free municipal bonds, which can produce more and more money for the redevelopment of inner cities. This scheme has been wholly successful in America. Tax-free bonds have been taken out by corporations and individuals on worthless land in the Baltimore inner-port scheme, and in Boston, Massachusetts, Washington and New York. Redevelopment has increased the worth of those bonds substantially. Thus, they have rejuvenated city centres in many parts of America. I hope that we too will be able to begin such a system to improve still further the excellent

    825
    development that is already in place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will, with his right hon. Friends in the Treasury, determine whether such a scheme could perpetuate the excellent action that has already been taken in Birmingham and other areas.
    5.6 pm
    Mr. David Clelland: It is a measure of the Government's failure adequately to deal with the problems faced by our inner cities that, after ten years, we still have to raise these issues and press for more effective solutions. The Government have tried, as the Minister has described this afternoon, in their own way, but despite the numerous gimmicks—tons of glossy brochures, loads of slick advertising, breakfast time press launches and myriad excuses—the basic problems remain: inadequate housing, poor facilities and poverty in the areas that we describe as inner cities.
    Despite the attempts by the Secretary of State for Social Services to deny the obvious, large-scale poverty has grown in the past ten years in these areas. Where there is poverty, bad housing, poor facilities and services, there is unfortunately also crime to add to the miserable conditions in which people must live.
    The Opposition motion calls for more emphasis on partnership between Government and local authorities. Inner-area partnerships already exist. My constituency is entirely encompassed by the Newcastle-Gateshead inner area partnership. The system was set up by the last Labour Government but, although it has been continued by this Government, its effectiveness has slowly been eroded by inflation, which has not been properly compensated for and which has led to a reduction in real terms of Government investment. Government restrictions on the type and duration of schemes have led to an emphasis on economic development, and because of its limited resources and a reduction in support for socially desirable schemes, the partnership can have little impact—yet it could have had a major effect.
    The influence of local authorities has been gradually limited even though almost all the innovations and partnership proposals come from them. Those which do not, come from the voluntary sector. The Department of the Environment merely holds the purse strings, and Ministers continually block schemes which councils know will benefit their areas because they do not fit the Government's political philosophy. The money that central Government contribute, apart from being eroded and strictly applied, has to be balanced against the money that was taken away from the councils by reductions in rate support grant and other grants over that period. In the case of Newcastle and Gateshead, the reduction in rate support grant alone came to more than twice what was received through partnership over the past 10 years. The Government give with one hand and take back with a forklift truck.
    One of the most worrying aspects of the Government's 10 years has been the horrific increase in crime. As I said earlier, our inner cities have also borne the brunt of this. What has the party of law and order done about it? The answer is percious little, and nothing that has had any noticeable effect. Northumbria police authority has continually pressed for more resources to deal with the
    826
    problems that it faces, particularly in the Tyne and Wear conurbation. The Government's response has been not only inadequate but inequitable.
    If the criterion for the distribution of resources was crime, then 200 police officers should be distributed to the Northumbria force from other areas. In the Tyne and Wear area, an officer handles an average of 50 crimes a year—the highest in the country. In Manchester, the figure is 46 and in the Metropolitan police force it is only 27, the lowest in the country. That is possibly because, per capita, Northumbria has the lowest number of officers and the Metropolitan police force has the highest. There are 2·4 officers per 1,000 of population in Northumbria, and 3·9 in London. However, when the Northumbria police authority asked the Home Office for 80 extra officers for 1989–90, it got just 30.
    As a further example of the unequal nature of the distribution of resources, when the Government were approached with a request for 59 officers for the specific purpose of policing the Tyne and Wear metro system, they turned the request down. However, London Regional Transport has been loaned 82 officers from the Metropolitan and City of London forces, pending the completion of training of 50 extra British Transport police. I understand that a meeting is to be held on 27 June, in another attempt to convince Ministers of the merits of the Tyne and Wear case. I hope that Ministers will take account of the disparities that I have mentioned and grant this necessary, but in the circumstances modest, request.
    A number of important problems need to be tackled urgently if the people of the inner-city areas on Tyneside are to be relieved of their problems, and its economy regenerated. In housing, massive renewal and refurbishment is needed at a time when Government policy has halted council house provision and slashed the housing capital programmes of the local authorities. Last July, Newcastle city council made a realistic bid for approval to borrow £48·3 million for 1989–90, but received permission to borrow only £6 million. Apart from being grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the city, that was even 25 per cent. less that it had been in 1988–89, before inflation is taken into account. That is a measure of the Government's understanding or caring about the housing needs of the inner-city areas, the plight of the homeless and the needs of those with special housing problems.
    The same thing has happened in education. In Gateshead, the council's secondary education system is in an unholy mess, largely because of the parochialism that the Government encourage. The Government's answer is to encourage privatisation and to bring in business men to run our schools. Thus, we have the proposal for a city technology college in Gateshead, just to add further confusion and complication to the problems that already exist. That proposal sacrifices our children's future to the short-term needs of business men. This was amply demonstrated by the main sponsor of the new college, Mr. Peter Vardy, a local second-hand car salesman, who said that the purpose of the college would be
    "to education children for the needs of business"—
    that is, when they are not being indoctrinated into Mr. Vardy's preference in religion. I am sure that all parents who care about their children's education and future will avoid the college like the plague, despite its deliberately alluring title of "King's college", which masks its sinister purpose.

    827
    Our inner cities, particularly in the north-east, need adequate infrastructure and good communications—not least, the provision of a high standard roads network, both within the region and linking us to the rest of the motorway system. Again, the Government, despite the opportunity, failed to come up with the goods when their future proposals, outlined in last week's White Paper, fell short of providing the vision or the urgency required. I hope that the representations that will be made to Ministers from both sides of the House on behalf of the region will be taken fully into account.
    The Tyne and Wear metro transport system is one of the most modern and efficient in Europe and has brought great benefits to the conurbation. Earlier today, the House agreed to a Bill that will allow for the extension of the system to Newcastle airport—an important and significant extension for the local economy. Again, the system will be relying on the Government for financial support, and I hope that they will look sympathetically on that request.
    Unemployment remains a massive problem in the northern inner cities, with some wards in my constituency running male unemployment rates in excess of 50 per cent. That provides further evidence of the nonsense spoken by the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government claim that this problem is reducing, but while some reduction is evident, a major factor in that reduction is the manipulation of the method of calculating unemployment rather than any significant increase in job opportunities. In my inner-city constituency, what decrease there has been, has been at a lower rate than that for the region as a whole.
    Those jobs that have been created are generally low-paid, part-time and in the catering and service industries. The days when people could rely on stable, well-paid work in valuable manufacturing industry have gone, as the Government's disastrous neglect of manufacturing led to a slump of previously unknown depths. Only now, as the Chancellor has told us, has it begun to make progress against the level that it was 10 years ago. In the process, we have lost the skills and the expertise of our craftsmen, which at one time were passed on to future generations, but have now been lost for ever in many cases.
    The recovery of which the Chancellor spoke is not a recovery in manufacturing industry. As has been said, the recovery is from a particularly low base. I worked in an engineering factory on Tyneside for 20 years and in 1979, that factory employed about 6,000 people. Now, it employs about 1,600. It has picked up in recent months and is beginning to improve, but it has a long way to go to get back to 6,000.
    The north-east of England is a marvellous place in which to live, to work and to bring up a family; I would never wish to work anywhere else. However, our inner-city areas not only share the problems faced by similar areas but also have the disadvantages which I have outlined, which a Government could resolve, with a little will and by letting us help ourselves. No doubt hon. Members will know that many good things are going on in the north-east. They include co-operation between local government and the private sector, which has always been a feature of the area and has brought a great deal of
    828
    benefit. It would continue to do so were it not hampered by the Government's obsession with giving dominance to the private sector, often when it does not want it.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy quoted the managing director of The Newcastle Journal saying at a recent dinner held in my constituency that the region was ready to take on the world. Some people will say anything for a free dinner, particularly when those attending the dinner are the people who dish out the rewards. However, he neglected to say that much of what is happening in the north-east is the result of the innovation of local people, the assistance and encouragement that people are given by the local authorities, and the contribution of the local authorities themselves. It has little to do with Government policy, which has hampered rather than encouraged that progress.
    I look forward to the day, not too far away now, when we shall have a Government who recognise the legitimate role of all sectors of the community, stop interfering and let us get on with the job.
    5.18 pm
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: For too long, those who live in our inner cities have felt relatively abandoned—second-class citizens making do with second best, for whom no one appears genuinely to care, and invariably finding themselves living within the confines of local Labour authorities whose interest seems to be to keep them imprisoned in an environment of fear and despair. The Opposition's motion is distinctly hypocritical.
    It took my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take the bull by the horns in June 1987—thank God she did—and to recognise that for too long successive Governments had ignored the underlying problems in the inner cities which had to be tackled. Why should those who live in the inner cities be denied the quality of life that the rest of us all too easily take for granted? It was a matter of taking up the basic strands of inner city life, injecting leadership—one of the most important criteria of any initiative—finance, enthusiasm and determination to overcome the problems which have contributed to an inferior way of life.
    Instead of talking, we should act. I could talk for hours about the Government's successive initiatives. I find it quite incredible that Opposition Members can say that nothing has happened under this Government. The Government have provided new jobs, training, new homes, more homes for rent, better education for all, a rejuvenation of derelict areas in which no one wished to invest, and an improvement in law and order. Within that structure, they have recognised the need for local authorities of whatever political persuasion to endeavour to put politics behind them and to work with the Government and the private sector for the good of local people.
    Unlike one or two Opposition Members, I can report at first hand that Wolverhampton is a thriving town. In the debate on manufacturing last week, we discussed the huge turnaround in the past seven years. People are flocking to invest in Wolverhampton and to set up new companies. But we have to remember the people who live there, and how much their quality of life depends on jobs and on the environment that is provided for them.

    829
    One of the most important and disturbing problems in Wolverhampton has involved homes and housing. People want housing where they can feel safe and which they can respect. One of the most serious problems in my constituency is the inability of the local Labour council to impose strict housing management, with the result that no matter how much money it spends—whether from ratepayers or taxpayers— the area is left to decline and heads are buried in the sand when it comes to ensuring that tenants abide by the rules of their tenancy, with the result that, all too often, such tenants reduce the quality of life of the people around them. In Low Hill in my constituency, thousands of pounds have been spent doing up council properties, with fantastic results, but the local housing department then allowed gipsy families to conglomerate in those houses and mow down the front garden walls, which had recently been erected, to put their caravans in front of the houses. Sometimes they even tethered animals inside their homes. Yet normal, conscientious people, many of them pensioners, are expected to live alongside such activities. Regrettably, the local council has shown no determination whatever to sort that situation out. The local council talks a lot but does little.
    Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Lady said that the council neglected to carry out repairs to council houses. Before accusing the council of neglect, will she tell the House what the budget is for the Wolverhampton housing committee to spend on council house repairs and whether it has declined in the past three years in real terms?
    Mrs. Hicks: The hon. Lady must have misheard me. I was not discussing repairs. I was discussing improvements that the council has made. In some cases it has done a marvellous job, but I decry the fact that, having invested money in council houses, it has then abandoned those properties so that no one wants to live in them. I ask the hon. Lady why Wolverhampton council has not collected the £4 million outstanding in rent arrears, which could be further invested for the good of other tenants.
    Ms. Primarolo: Because the Government have made the tenants so poor that they cannot afford to pay their rent.
    Mrs. Hicks: Now that the hon. Lady has opened up the debate, why does not the council get on with the job of filling the 2,000 empty homes so that we can solve the housing problem?
    Another area in my constituency is called Heathtown, where, after 16 years of a Labour local authority, people felt like prisoners living in high-rise flats where the lack of housing management resulted in squalid conditions fit only for animals. I have seen it many times. The flats were not fit for people to live in and they were a breeding ground for criminal activity. The local council could not give the flats away to people on the waiting list and had to advertise them outside its own area although it has a long housing waiting list. The Government stepped in, recognising that Labour councillors could not control the housing and offered a much-needed estate management initiative, 'Estate Action', and an initial injection of £600,000. The local Labour authority now thinks it marvellous that the flats have security doors, video cameras and concierges. The local people assume that it is
    830
    local authority money and, as with so many initiatives, do not realise that it was Government money and Government-inspired.
    When the Opposition with their hearts on their sleeves talk about the homeless, they do not mention the delaying tactics that Labour councils apply to prevent people from owning their own council homes. On Fridays and Saturdays my surgery is filled not with social security problems but with people who put in to buy their council homes two, three or four years ago but find the local council using delaying tactics to thwart the right to buy. That is a disgrace.
    Nationally, there are 103,000 empty local authority dwellings, many in inner-city areas. Nearly 22,000 of those are available for immediate letting. In theory, every homeless family could be taken out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation if Labour authorities would let those properties.
    Jobs and training figure very largely in the west midlands, where there has been an enormous reduction in unemployment. Wolverhampton has had the benefit of a Government task force which has done a marvellous job getting people into work. One of the problems that: we recognise is that people need to be retrained in new skills and others need basic remedial education to help them apply for training places. When I hear Opposition Members talk about the creation of jobs and about training and skill shortages, I find it incredible that in Wolverhampton, where there is high unemployment, the local Labour council has turned down £700,000 for 400 places. That is the sort of initiative that the Labour council takes on employment training.
    When I visited a day-care centre for the elderly last week. I met many elderly people who said, "Mrs. Hicks, I hear that your Government is closing down our day centre." When I asked them why that should be so, they said, "We have no more employment training places—what are we to do?" I had to explain to them that their local caring Labour authority was handing back the money for those places and then asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, "Why has the European Commission turned us down for money for training, and why won't our local Member of Parliament, Mrs. Hicks, fight for more money for training?" [Interruption.] I draw from experience in my appraisal of the local Labour council only because of the Opposition motion today. It is far better to talk from experience than simply to waffle.
    I want to talk further about the creation of urban development corporations. I was fortunate the other day to go around the London docklands for the first time. I must admit that I had left it too long. It was fantastic. I came back to the House and decided that the whole House should take a day trip to the London docklands because the enthusiasm that I saw there sent me back full of heart. There were so many achievements there such as rebuilding and new factories—
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: They were there before.
    Mrs. Hicks: I can see what was there before, where the area has not been improved. The area had been so run down that people believed that nothing would ever happen. If we can achieve such rejuvenation through the Black Country urban development corporation, which is

    831
    in its early days, it would be extremely encouraging. In the Black Country UDC we have £160 million, which will provide 20,000 jobs, but the Labour party locally says, "If we get back in, we shall do away with all urban development corporations."
    I recognise that one of the most disturbing elements of inner-city life concerns law and order. If people do not feel safe in their flats, whether they rent or buy them, that is a disgrace. In Wolverhampton, we have a superb town centre where local people were frightened to shop. They said, "We have a lovely town centre, but we shall avoid it like the plague because it is not safe by day or by night."
    Mr. Heffer: Ten years ago your Government were going to solve all that.
    Mrs. Hicks: We said, "Let us have video cameras in the town centre," and Wolverhampton was one of the first towns to do so. Local Labour councillors said, "We do not want nasty video cameras because they are an invasion of privacy and a restriction on individuals". [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are."] We have seen the biggest reduction in crime in Wolverhampton and we now have virtually no criminal activity in the town centre. All the other local authorities now say, "Let us follow Wolverhampton's initiative," and who is taking the credit for that? It is the local council.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Give us the figures.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: There is the real spokesman on law and order.
    Mrs. Hicks: I happen to have the figures with me. We have had an 18 per cent. downturn compared with the same period last year. Robberies are down by 52 per cent. in Wolverhampton, house burglaries are down by 24 per cent., criminal damage is down by 16 per cent. and wounding is down by 3 per cent. The only figure to show an increase is for the theft of bicycles, which have increased by 38 per cent. The figures speak for themselves, as they do throughout the west midlands. I was delighted when the Government chose Wolverhampton as one of the first towns to take part in the 'safer cities' scheme and we worked hard to be chosen. The scheme involves many threads, not just the Government or the police, but junior crime prevention, probation officers and the local community. If inner-city life is to improve, everyone must be involved. We cannot just leave it to the local council or the Government.
    Unless we provide sound education to equip young people with skills for the future in a manufacturing area such as mine, we shall have problems as a result of the decreasing work force. We welcome all initiatives to bring industry and schools closer, and I am glad that we have now taken the initiative with the chamber of commerce to establish a compact in some of the schools in my constituency. I also welcome the city technology colleges. One of the first towns that would have had the offer of a CTC was Wolverhampton, but what happened?
    Mr. George Howarth: The council did not want one.
    Mrs. Hicks: That is right—the hon. Gentleman knows his party so well. There is a skills shortage in the area, and as a manufacturing area we should be encouraging our
    832
    young people in technology, but the council did not want a CTC because it believed that it would be elitist. That is one of the saddest decisions that the council has made.
    The Conservative party has shown commitment and vision. Our initiatives speak louder than the hollow words of the Opposition. The Opposition motion is a cheek coming from a party that has not come forward with one policy, but merely destructive opposition to all that we have achieved.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a short debate. Contributions ought to be brief.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will not be tempted to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) down the highways and byways of Wolverhampton although, having spoken just after her in last week's debate on manufacturing, I must say that she makes it sound an interesting place—all the more interesting for her presence there.
    Immediately after the last election, the Prime Minister suddenly declared that there was a problem with Britain's inner cities. She has, of course, long since slunk off from the photo call which followed that pronouncement, while the deeply felt problems of the inner cities persist. Wolverhampton may be a shining exception, but what we are seeing develop in Britain—this is not surprising, given the Government's conscious efforts to Americanise this country in so many ways—is an urban under-class, which has become a common and tragic feature of many north American cities.
    That new class grows from a combination of many factors, many of which have been referred to this afternoon, such as poor housing, sub-standard education, soaring crime—much of it drug-related—racial tensions and the exodus of the better-off to the suburbs, with a good portion of the job market going with them. There is high youth unemployment, dependency on state benefits and the break-up of family structures. All those factors combine in different ways to contribute to the problem, and each factor tends to reinforce the others.
    There is economic decline and that is true of a city such as Glasgow. We have had one by-election recently in Glasgow and another will soon be under way. Glasgow shows the tale of two cities that we see elsewhere. In some areas of Glasgow, there is a high proportion of people who have worked in the traditional industries that have declined and all but gone. Such a massive economic collapse—especially in the traditional sector—has hastened many of the problems of the inner cities.
    I will concentrate on one or two issues and suggest one or two of the policy areas that the Government should be addressing which would help the inner cities. They could help London, which has a pitifully high proportion of exiled young Scots who are homeless, or Glasgow, which has made marvellous strides forward in recent years and is a shining example, I readily concede, of a Labour local authority that has worked fully with the grain of the private sector to the benefit of the local environment. However, problems persist in both places and I want to bring some of them to the Minister's attention.

    833
    When one considers council accommodation in the Greater London area, one sees that nearly 40 per cent. of families live in council accommodation, much of it in poor condition and much of it suffering, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said, from the massive clawbacks inflicted by the Government on local authority capacity to spend money on repairs and improvements. If one looks across the river, one sees an area with a high elderly population and a history of poor health, much of it due to poverty and to bad social conditions, which were most notable in housing, and a dual problem emerges within welfare provision.
    Bad housing, the lack of capital spend and the sort of problems referred to by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East about poor management at the local authority end, combine to create a bad social basis which, in itself, is bad for people's health. However, further than that, there is a reluctance on the part of general practitioners to move their practices into inner-city areas because such practices are likely to be small and to draw on a dwindling and elderly population. As that means that the capitation fee is likely to be low, a GP's income will be depressed while the work load will be heavy. I cannot see how the Government's policies on the NHS and on hospitals opting out will in any way assist in any inner-city area that is suffering from such problems.
    Surely that policy will result in a concentration of what might be called the more glamorous high-tech operations and a consequent dimunition in the emphasis that is given to basic health care and especially to preventive health care and to recall facilities, not least in women's health, in which, throughout the country but especially in the inner cities, much greater progress must be made.
    I turn now to crime, which, as I have said, is often drug-related. The crime rate is high and in too many of our inner cities it is rising. The number of serious crimes reported per 1,000 residents in inner London is more than 50 per cent. above the average for metropolitan areas. It has no less than doubled since 1971. On average there is now a violent crime every hour in Britain's capital city. Non-violent crimes, such as theft and burglary, are now so common that, as all hon. Members will know from their own experience and from their friends and contacts in this city, many people do not even bother to report them either because of the lack of time that is given to following them up or clearing them up or because of the probable low success rate that individuals think will be achieved in redress.
    Finally, I underscore one point about education made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, although I do not follow the philosophy of her analysis. It is absolutely essential that teacher morale is improved and that better pay and conditions are achieved for teachers. We should move towards a right to numeracy. That means no non-qualified maths teachers in our schools. Schools should be integrated more closely with their local communities, including the business community. In that context, the compact programme of the much-maligned ILEA must be welcomed.
    There is much to be done about inner cities in this country. It must be something of a frustration for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, although this subject became the overriding priority of the Prime Minister after the last election, one suspects that now it does not figure very prominently on her scale of values. Under this Government, that is likely to lead to inner cities
    834
    being relegated once again to the position that they occupied during the first eight years of this Conservative Administration.
    5.43 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will not take it amiss if I do not follow him down the avenue that he took, although I shall mention some of the points that he raised.
    When the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruschcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made his statement on inner-city policy last year, in the questions that followed I pointed out that inner-city deprivation does not occur only in the inner cities, because one can find similar deprivation in small towns and rural areas throughout the country. That is certainly true of my constituency, in parts of which unemployment is running at over 20 per cent. In the constituency as a whole unemployment is twice the national rate, even though it has fallen from 7,000 to 4,000 in the past two and a half years. The largest group of questions with which I deal in my constituency surgeries relates to welfare benefits, which makes me similar to many hon. Members representing inner-city areas.
    My experience of this subject goes back to the days when I was a pupil in a 2,000-pupil comprehensive school in south London. Then I saw at first hand some of the major problems that afflict us to this day in inner cities. That was reinforced by my experience when I began teaching in Bermondsey in south-east London, in what was popularly known as a "sink" secondary modern school, and by my eight years as a councillor in an inner London borough.
    That experience is borne out every day when I travel to the House, because when I am in London I live in Forest, Hill and travel through the London boroughs of Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth. As I drive through the Aylesbury estate, which is not a mile and a half from this House, I see boarded-up council properties covered with graffiti; walls that are falling down; street furniture, such as traffic lights, that is out of order or that has been knocked on the side because of accidents that happened perhaps six or nine months ago. I see streets that are littered with paper and which have not been swept for months and where the pavements and the road surfaces are broken. Young saplings that have been planted by the local authority have been broken and snapped off. Yet those are the areas with high spending councils that produce high rates bills for their citizens.
    The issue of "the condition of the people", which is how Disraeli described it 100 years ago, will be a major issue at the next election. The key to the problems in our inner cities lies in the fact that those areas have one thing in common: they are run by Labour local authorities. The problems are not the shame of 10 years of Conservative Government but of 40 or 50 years of municipal Socialism. It is those Labour authorities that have done so much to ruin the environment of their citizens and to ensure that they have very little freedom of manoeuvre or of personal choice and responsibility. The "local state"—to quote a Marxist term—which has been in power in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham for years, with the exception of three years in the late 1960s, has been responsible for

    835
    taking away people's choice and freedom. It has been responsible for building the large impersonal council estates that have been so badly vandalised.
    As I stand at a bus stop that is not two miles from the House, I hear people saying, "Why don't they do something about it?" Those people believe that the local council is responsible for everything. They believe that the amorphous "they" have the duty to ensure that the environment is cleaned up. To a large extent those people are right: "they"—that is, the local authority—have made sure that the local citizens have very little personal power because they live in council houses and must use the local authority schools. They have no choice about the sort of environment in which they live. Such people also have a feeling of desperation because they feel that they cannot do anything to improve their situation themselves. Again, that is to come back to the fact that in those societies people have very little choice or responsibility.
    I was most surprised and, indeed, gratified to get support for this thesis from Linda Bellos, the former leader of Lambeth council, who admitted that people in areas such as Lambeth have been
    "failed by the education system, failed by the anachronistic rating system and, yes, failed by municipal housing".
    That was said in a speech at Brunel university on 22 October 1987. At least there is a glimmer of understanding among some members of the Labour party about the reality of the issue.
    The London borough of Tower Hamlets reached the stage where 90 per cent. of the housing in the borough was owned by the local authority. People had no opportunity to buy a property or to rent a property from a private landlord if they wished to do so because the local authority had effectively municipalised private housing out of the borough. If one did not come within the criteria for getting a council house, one could not live in the area. It was therefore no surprise that doctors, nurses and teachers were driven away from such boroughs and had to drive into the area from outer London to carry out their work. Many of them gave up the battle and there is now a chronic problem in Tower Hamlets where, according to some surveys, 30 per cent. of the children have to be sent home daily from school because of the lack of teachers.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am pleased that my hon. Friend quoted from the speech by Miss Bellos. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was not present to hear it. It is indicative of Opposition Members' interest in the matter that only half a dozen of them are present. Only one Opposition Member—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a short debate. Hon. Members have been sitting here patiently waiting to speak.
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Only three Labour Back-Bench Members are present for a debate that they selected.
    When I was a councillor on the housing committee of the London borough of Lewisham, it was interesting to visit estates in the Surrey docks which we were taking over from the GLC and note the dereliction of the slums that had occurred in about 10 years. I also saw a friend who lived in the Barbican estate, which was built at exactly the
    836
    same time and was of exactly the same model, but it was a model estate. That suggests something about council housing and about the way in which tenants are given little control over their own lives. They are not given a say in management, there are no housing co-operatives and there is no chance to buy properties in some London boroughs. That has an effect.
    I listened with interest to an Opposition Member shout about yuppies. It seems extremely odd that a group of young people who have the initiative and enterprise to do something about getting jobs and about improving the houses that they buy should be vilified by Opposition Members as people who should not be emulated. That does not mean that we must praise some people's nasty city barrow boy mentality, but it ill becomes eminent personages to go to Tower Hamlets and tell the Bangladeshis there, "Your problems are caused by yuppie gentrification," when, for the first time, the gentrification of inner-city areas caused by people using their own money to improve those areas has started to bring private capital into areas which for so long have been under municipal control.
    The same applies to employment. It is no use Labour Members arguing that London has high unemployment when, at the same time, we know that job opportunities in London are good. The black economy in London is thriving. Given the large number of vacancies, there is no reason why anyone in our capital city who wishes to have a job should be out of work.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Bennett: I will not give way. I have only a couple of minutes left.
    Another interesting point is Labour Members' attitude to docklands. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I have been to docklands and seen the incredible changes that have taken place since 1981, when the urban development corporation was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I was a member of the local authority. I remember the seven wasted years of the Docklands Joint Committee, when the five riparian boroughs and the GLC talked but did nothing at all. It is no use the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) saying that they were planning. The people of docklands wanted jobs for the area and new houses built.
    Education is the key to trying to improve many inner-city areas. Opposition Members have unjustifiably made much of the Inner London education authority. On examination results, ILEA came 87th in the league. Wigan, which has similar social problems, came ninth. It is interesting to note that Wigan was able to educate its children at half the cost of ILEA. We must make sure that teachers are paid well according to the regions in which they work, the subject that they teach—if there is a shortage of teachers of certain subjects—and performance. I do not want blanket increases for teachers if poor teachers are equally rewarded.
    It is no use just talking about crime in inner cities. There is serious crime in inner cities. Much of it involves mindless attacks on strangers by yobboes on buses and trains and in the street. We must examine what is causing it. It has nothing to do with society or Doctor Hienz Kiosks in the Opposition who tell us that we are all guilty. It is to do with

    837
    the personal morality of the people who do the attacking. It comes down to the education and social systems in our schools. We do not give moral education and guidance to our children and tell them when things are right or wrong. Our education services and the Secretary of State for Education and Science should make sure that, in future, the curriculum contains a large element of moral education to try to get those who see no danger or harm in mindless violence to be educated in the values of right and wrong.
    5.54 pm
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: I must put the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) right. He talked about Labour authorities. I lived in docklands in the east end for most of my life, and I remember that the Labour council carried out the biggest slum clearance scheme in Europe at a time when Tories were saying, "It is no good giving the workers baths; they will only put coal in them." The Labour council took people out of hovels. Getting a council flat meant a new life, and that was everybody's ambition. Many of those council flats are still desirable and beautiful today, especially those that were built by the GLC. Many of them are run down, but our rate support grant has been stolen by the Government. We have been rate-capped, and Labour councils, and Tower Hamlets council, are now handicapped by insufficient funds to repair and restore properties. Hon. Members should not deride that slum clearance, at it gave new life to thousands of people.
    I represent a docklands constituency. It is high on the list of indices that measure poverty and deprivation. I have the plans of the Docklands Joint Committee, which knew what the area wanted and needed, and it was very different from what the Government have imposed upon it. The Docklands Joint Committee was made up of representatives from the GLC, the Department of the Environment and local boroughs—a good mix of local and national bodies. Its overall objective was to use the opportunity provided by the availability of parts of docklands for development to redress housing, social, environmental, employment, economic and communications difficulties. The boroughs provided freedom for similar improvements throughout east and inner London.
    We have something very different with the London Docklands development corporation, a neo-colonial quango answerable to nobody but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. That body was imposed upon us. The LDDC's aims were different. It was to regenerate the land, not the community, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has said. Its actions have been detrimental to the community. The availability of that large area of vacant land was an historical opportunity to solve the London housing crisis once and for all. That opportunity has been thrown away.
    Let us examine council house building figures since the Government have been in office. The number of council new build completions in east London in 1979 was 4,250. The latest figures available for 1986–87 is 430—a tenth of what it was before. New build completions are grinding to a halt. In 1979, there were 3,613 new build starts. There were 490 in 1986–87.
    Conservative Members say that there are too many council houses and that people need to buy their own houses. That is not what local people think. They think
    838
    that they need more council housing, not less. There are over 10,000 people on the waiting list. They, those on the transfer list and the homeless think that we in the east end need more council housing, but the Government do not listen to what we say, because it does not suit them and their speculator friends to do so. The number of right-to-buy sales in the five years from 1980–81 to 1985–86 were 16,200. In the last year of that period, the number reduced to 2,716, and it is falling.
    Many elderly people and pensioners have told me that they do not want to buy their houses at their time of life. They cannot afford it with the little bit of money that they have left. They would rather enjoy themselves and have some security with a little money in the bank. However, they are afraid that the Government's policy means that their council estates will be sold to private housing organisations. They are afraid that they will lose tenure and eventually be forced out. They have been forced into buying.
    Many people have told me that they wished that they could return to being council tenants because they had encountered problems with their properties. For example, people have found asbestos flaking off beneath wallpaper when they have decorated. The local authority claims that it cannot help because it has no money. The Government will not give the local authority money to help, claiming the council must find the money from its own pool. A hell of a lot of people in east London are in a dreadful mess.
    People are also finding that the service and other charges are higher than they had thought they would be. They cannot afford those charges as inflation rises. We must remember that 10 per cent. of those who are registered as homeless are mortgage defaulters and that figure should not be taken lightly. Buying a house is not the answer to everyone's dream, although for those who can afford it, it may be desirable.
    In 1978 there were 3,601 homeless people in the area. In 1986–87 that figure had risen to 9,037. We should bear in mind that childless couples and single people are not included in that figure. Similarly, it does not include people sleeping in cardboard boxes or on other people's floors. In 1983 in the east London boroughs, there were 438 people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In 1988, there were 1,550. Those figures are an indictment of the Government's policies.
    The LDDC has brought in speculators who have built many houses. However, the local population cannot afford them. Very few properties built in my constituency were ever in the affordable bracket. Only the houses built by Barratts at Glengall place and by Comben on the Mudshute were relatively affordable. Local residents were supposed to be given priority for lower-priced houses, but there was a great deal of fiddling by unwelcome speculators.
    Thames Television inquired into the fiddling and found that one group of business men had bought 15 properties. In other cases, properties were bought and resold without being occupied. People bought rent books to show a local address. There were 10 dubious sales at the Caledonian wharf, which were actually stopped. Some of the Cascades flats were bought and offered for resale while the scheme was still just a hole in the ground.
    We need consider only how the price of those apartments and houses has risen to see that this was not housing for local people, but simply an opportunity for the speculators to get rich. In 1985, a two-bedroom flat in

    839
    London Yard on the Isle of Dogs cost £58,191—much more than local people could afford. In 1988, it cost £160,000. In 1984 a one-bedroom flat on Clippers quay, also on the Isle of Dogs, cost £40,000. In 1986, it cost £109,000. A two-bedroomed flat which cost £39,495 rose in three years to £199,995. A three-bedroomed house, which is what most families want, rose from £60,000 to £175,000. In large part, that housing was bought by speculators and resold, or bought by people from outside the area who had large incomes and large pockets.
    Many young people with high salaries took on heavy mortgages. Some of them are now unhappy with what is happening. They find that life under the dictatorship of the LDDC is not so great. Some of the houses are jerry built. I have been told of an estate where the land is subsiding and water has come flooding in. I have heard of cases where a property was purchased for a great deal of money in a quiet court, but one flat was turned into a wine bar and residents had to suffer the noise of car doors banging late at night. Similarly, people complain of noise from across the river from the Victoria deep water metal crushing depot. I have also heard that some roads are covered in mud when it rains. Bus drivers have told me that some of the roads on the Isle of Dogs are becoming dangerous because of some of the developers' sloppy work.
    As the market drops, I believe that Canary wharf could become a great ghost edifice like some of those in New York. It is meant to be the biggest office development in Europe. It will create huge wind funnels. My area does not need that development.
    Housing action trusts were another of the Government's policies for inner cities. We are all aware of the east enders' reactions to HATs. All the apartment houses down the Mile End road had huge banners hanging from them attacking and denouncing HATs. The tenants did not want them and they made that quite clear to the Minister when he met them at mass meetings. The Government had to retreat on HATs. The tenants were ready to blockade themselves in their own homes to stop anyone entering.
    The tenants knew that, under HATs, after several years their estates would be sold to speculators, their rents would no longer be affordable and they would lose tenure. I went into places which had water streaming down the walls, yet even those tenants preferred to stick with the local authority rather than have a HAT. They did not trust the Government.
    The pick-a-landlord scheme is also causing terror in areas like the east end. People feel secure with the local authority. They can vote for it and they can vote it out. They can bring pressure to bear. They can speak their minds to local councillors. However, the Government's schemes will remove their democratic right and control over housing. Tory Members who talk about Government proposals giving tenants' control are talking through their HATs. That is all nonsense.
    The east enders have seen two bodies which they respected and supported destroyed by the Government—the Greater London Council and the Inner London education authority. An opinion poll showed that 90 per cent. of Londoners did not want ILEA abolished, but the Government disregarded them. How can the Government claim that they are a democratic Government?
    840
    County hall, our city hall, which belongs to the community, will be sold off, probably to become hotels and expensive apartment houses so that rich people can enjoy the river. Londonders will lose all rights to that building. That is typical of the Government's approach to the inner cities. They take away all the best places.
    I warn people from other towns who have been told that they are going to have an urban development corporation that the LDDC, which is supposed to be the jewel in the Government's crown and the model UDC, has pinched pieces of land along the river, canals and bridlepaths. It has pinched the most pleasant places which go to rich people and local people do not get a look in. The children of local people are forced to move far away. That is bad for the community, especially for an aging community.
    Housing has been for a very long time the most urgent problem in the inner cities and in east London in particular. Jobs are also very important. Before I made my maiden speech in the House two years ago, I carried out investigations and discovered that, despite all the public money which has been poured into the LDDC—money which was never available for the plans of the Joint Docklands Committee and the local authorities—there has been a net loss of jobs. A month ago I asked another series of questions and found, rather to my surprise, that there was a slightly bigger net loss of jobs, despite everything that has happened in the past two years.
    Health care is important in an area with a rising population. Unlike the rest of the country, in Tower Hamlets there has been an explosion in the birth rate, bringing housing and health problems in its train. Two weeks ago, I held a meeting with general practitioners from Tower Hamlets in this building and they were unanimously against the Government's proposals for the Health Service. They have been denounced as greedy, as liars, but in fact they are devoted people. One has to be devoted to choose to work in east London.
    At that meeting I took 12 pages of notes on why they knew—not felt—that the Government's proposals would damage the doctor-patient relationship, damage the interests of doctors, particularly in the smaller rundown practices that they are trying to build up, and damage the interests of their patients. They feel that people will have to make long journeys for operations and that there will be no continuity of provision, because, whereas a district health authority may make a contract with Wolverhampton for hip replacement operations one year, the next year somewhere else may be cheaper. For the first time, there will be a money limitation on drug provision. That is already frightening people who require a lot of drugs.
    Everyone is worried about the London hospital. That has always been a community hospital, deeply integrated with the local community, but it is now expressing an interest in opting out. Neither the doctors nor the community health council were consulted. The London hospital has expressed an interest in opting out without consultation.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Opting out of what?
    Ms. Gordon: Opting out of the Health Service in the long term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have met

    841
    officials who are already talking about providing operations more cheaply than private hospitals. In the long term, that means opting out of the Health Service.
    Mr. Hind: Disinformation.
    Ms. Gordon: It is not disinformation. We are destined to have a two-tier Health Service. Hospitals such as the London hospital will start by changing their policies, providing heart transplants and glamorous medicine rather than serving the local community and will eventually opt out of the Health Service.
    Mr. Hind: They will not be allowed.
    Ms. Gordon: Whether they are allowed to or not, in the meantime local people will have to travel far to obtain the services that they need. If the Government's proposals are put into effect, the London hospital will no longer be a community hospital.
    The Inner London education authority has been building new schools and extra classrooms, but east end schools cannot attract teachers. When there was council house building, there was also a key worker scheme, but that no longer exists. Doctors and teachers cannot come to the east end because they cannot afford to buy the houses that are being built there by the speculators whom the LDDC has allowed in.
    The hon. Member for Pembroke spoke of teachers being paid by results. Payment by result was abandoned as an uncivilised method of education in the last century. It is rather surprising to hear the last century's ideas being trotted out again as new ones.
    The hon. Member suggested that there should be regional agreements on wages. I f regional agreements on wages replace national arbitration, teachers will go from areas with poor councils, many problems and deprivation, to the richer areas. Instead of the stability that children need, teachers will be on the move even more than they are now and there will be fewer teachers in Tower Hamlets rather than more. Such policies will damage education in the east end of London.
    Again, those policies are designed to create a two-tier system. Just as we shall have a two-tier Health Service with hospitals opting out, so we shall have a two-tier education service, with working-class children given minimum education, as happened before the Education Act 1944. Only a few working-class kids who are more academically able and quicker off the mark will be educated alongside middle-class and rich children. They will have a different kind of education and curriculum. Time will prove me right. That is what the Government's policies are designed to create, when and as they can introduce them. However, they will not be able to do so, because this Government will not last beyond the next election.
    In the east end of London, transport is developerled,which again is not what the east end needs. The docklands light railway was welcome, but it is not safe transport. The doors are not safe, there is nobody at the stations and at the moment it does not even operate at night or during the weekend. I have been told by LDDC officials that the computer system does not work well. The trains still stop at the ghost station of Canary wharf, and no one knows how to prevent them from doing so. Anyone who travels down the A13 will see that transport in the east
    842
    end is a complete mess. There is a constant snarl-up on that road. There are traffic jams at 9 pm and during the weekends.
    Just as the inner cities need an integrated health policy with primary, secondary and local community care implementing the Griffiths report's recommendations, which the Government are so carefully ignoring, so they need an integrated transport policy. The GLC's "Fares Fair" policy was right. That was designed to take people out of their cars and on to public transport. Just as we need more affordable housing, so we need more affordable public transport.
    I cannot finish without talking about the environment, about which the Prime Minister talks so much. It is proposed to run a road through Victoria park, the only large park in the east end. Mile End park will be encroached upon. The Tower Hamlets environmental trust has identified 36 small pieces of land, designated as public open space, which are under threat. Such pieces of land are important to those living in flats. They are needed for taking a walk and for walking the dog, and the lives of children centre around them. They are under threat because everything is becoming market-led and he developers have their greedy eyes upon them.
    We wanted local jobs and workshops so that people could use their skills to work at local trades. We could have had a riverside walk. This is an historic area. There are places of interest that could have been developed. Instead, there are expensive flats along the riverside, and the are built right up to the river's edge so there can be no riverside walks. No tourist will be able to walk along there from the tower; nor will the local people. Even part of Island gardens on the river front is under threat, as is the King Edward memorial park. The interests of the local people and the environment come second to the market.
    More money has been poured into the police. There are many new inspectors and other high officials in the police force, but there are not so many extra men in the lower ranks on the streets to prevent crime. Their number has hardly increased at all.
    Local people are the experts. They know what they need and want. They express their wishes, desires and demands through the locally-elected authorities, some of which have been abolished and others of which are being rate-capped so that they have no money to improve their areas.
    Local people need affordable rents, affordable transport and local democracy. They do not want the form of dictatorship that is being imposed on them because it is not acting in their interest but in the interest of the profit makers. It has brought no benefits to the local community and it is driving many of them out of the inner cities.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) spoke for over 20 minutes in this comparatively short debate and throughout her speech she presented no new ideas and displayed no vision for the future. Her speech showed that there is no leadership in the Labour party in London or in the inner cities.
    I apologise in advance to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who I know is keen to make his electioneering speech for the Vauxhall by-election. In view of the amount of time that his hon. Friend the Member for

    843
    Bow and Poplar occupied, it will not be possible for me to permit him to do that and at the same time make a reasonable speech myself.
    In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—I do not think the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar could have been listening to him—said that one way to improve education in the inner cities would be to introduce regional pay variations and give financial incentives to people to teach in the inner cities. Perhaps it is another failing of Labour Members that they do not listen to the comments of their colleagues.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook painted a picture which had little relationship to reality, so I shall cover some of the background that we should have in mind in this important debate. Unemployment is now at its lowest for 18 years, with a fall of 1 million in the unemployment register since the 1987 election campaign. There has also been a record fall—of 500,000 in the last two years—in the number of long-term unemployed. Indeed, long-term unemployment has fallen faster than total unemployment, and that has been reflected in inner-city areas, where unemployment generally fell by 22 per cent. in the year to March 1989, and in the same year, long-term unemployment in inner-city areas fell by 22 per cent.
    During the week, I live in the inner-city area of Lambeth—in the parliamentary constituency of Vauxhall—and I suspect that my hon. Friends and I have done more to represent the people there than has the erstwhile hon. Member for Vauxhall who is set to go elsewhere.
    In the inner-city areas we have seen a new enterprise culture, with self-employment on the increase. On average, 500 small firms have set up each week since 1979, many of them in inner-city areas. Unlike the depressing future projected by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, the prosperity of the inner cities will turn on competitive businesses earning commercial returns. The entrepreneurs and members of the business community whom she decries because they are coming into inner-city areas are the very people who will generate the prosperity which will provide the jobs for her constituents and those of other hon. Members.
    We must continue to encourage private sector development and work to enable inner-city residents to benefit fully from the regeneration of their own neighbourhoods. Since the beginning of March this year, the Government have announced 10 new schools-industry compacts, five new safer cities programmes, three new inner-city task forces and four new initiatives to help inner-city residents to take part in employment training. Compare that with the lack of new ideas in the speeches of Opposition Members.
    At last in our inner cities we are beginning to get a grip on ensuring good education in our schools, with a national curriculum, testing assessments and a new academic rigour which is raising standards and encouraging parental input. My young son goes to an inner-city school in Lambeth. It is an indictment of ILEA that vast numbers of black children attending that and other schools in inner-city areas go to supplementary schools on Saturdays. Up till
    844
    now, it has been felt that the standard of education they received in inner-London schools has been insufficient to meet their needs.
    Only now is the Labour party beginning to recognise that black and other parents in inner-city areas want their children to achieve proper standards of literacy and numeracy so that they can compete in the world outside. We are providing the resources to enable them to do that. Spending per pupil increased by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and now, the pupil-teacher ratio has improved from 18·9 in 1979 to 17 today, and average class sizes have been falling. That is all good news.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave a litany of figures about inner-city crime, but his figures did not reflect the facts. There were falls in recorded crime in practically every metropolitan area last year, and in London, recorded crime was down by 5 per cent. in the 12 months to September 1988. The strength of the metropolitan police force has been increased by 5,550 officers in recent years and a further 300 posts have been approved for 1988–89.
    Whatever yardstick one wishes to use—be it developing enterprise culture, improving education and facilities or increasing resources for the police and tackling crime—in all spheres the Conservatives have introduced and are introducing positive, realistic and worthwhile initiatives.
    From Opposition Members we hear only a counsel of despair, often unrelated to the facts. For example, in the last week Labour Members have tried to suggest that many of our inner cities are gripped by deep poverty. In fact, the Government are spending almost £50 billion this year, about one third of all Government spending on social security. Real take-home pay for a family on average earnings with two children has gone up by 27 per cent. under Conservative rule. It barely rose under Labour. Tax thresholds have come down, taking large numbers of people out of tax, and people at all levels are better off than they were in 1979.
    Those are all facts that the electors of Vauxhall and other inner city constituencies will have good cause to remember. Indeed, I suspect that it will be hard for Labour campaigners to find people in Vauxhall who can say with honesty that they are worse off now in real terms than they were in 1979.
    Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has been quoting general figures. Lambeth borough council commissioned independent consultants to produce a survey of incomes to show what has happened to earnings in Lambeth over the last 10 years or so. That survey made it clear that the bottom 25 per cent. of the population have suffered a continuing reduction in their real standard of living. Those are incontrovertible figures, produced, as I say, not by the council but by independent consultants. In other words, the poor have got poorer and the rich have got richer, and that is the real truth of the inner cities.
    Mr. Baldry: I categorically and emphatically deny that the people of Lambeth or anywhere else in Britain have got poorer in real terms in the last 10 years. The safety net below which nobody can fall has improved dramatically during those years, and that is why the poor of Lambeth as of any other area, are better off.
    The hon. Gentleman confuses the position by comparing the standard of living of one section of people with that of another section. We must see that poor people

    845
    have a level below which they cannot fall. On that basis, Conservative policies have ensured that everyone in the community—single-parent families, pensioners, the longterm disabled—are all better off in real terms than they were in 1979.
    Inner-city recovery is on the way. The cycle of decline has been broken. Eight years of continued economic growth have created a climate in which enterprise can flourish. This year, nearly £3·5 billion of Government measures will help to carry that enterprise and prosperity into inner cities. Those Opposition Members whose response to every problem is the phrase "more money" should take on board that figure of £3·5 billion. Investment is strong. Unemployment is falling. New education and training policies are in place. Recorded crime is down. Our cities are developing a new and positive image. The simple and straightforward truth is that the inner cities are safe in the hands of a Conservative Government.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Eric S. Heller: I agree with members on the Government Front Bench on only two points. First, I agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that inner-city problems did not begin with a Conservative Government. However, my argument is that those problems became worse under the Conservatives. Secondly, I agree that unemployment has fallen—but it is equally true to say that, in the first five or six years of Conservative Government, unemployment was at a much higher level than under Labour.
    In shoving so-called facts across the Chamber at each other, we often risk missing the whole point, which is that we live in a society in which unemployment is liable to increase and decrease at certain times; in which there will be relative poverty and real poverty, and in which people will be much better off at other times. We have not addressed the real problems of the inner cities and the people who live there.
    Not all inner-city housing is bad. It is nonsense to say that every inner-city area is full of poor housing. But it does exist, and in some cases there is no housing provision at all. That is true also of city outskirts. Some people living in the inner cities suffer real poverty and from other problems that developed over the years. One of them is high unemployment, which affects not only the ethnic minorities. Problems are also faced by young people of 15 or 16 years of age who have never known a wage packet at the end of the week. They have no idea of the dignity of being employed. It is vital that people have jobs.
    The difficulty of solving those problems is that there are two distinct approaches to doing so. The Government believe that they can all be solved by private enterprise, and that if one can only secure private investment and encourage the involvement of business men, that will be sufficient to deal with the situation.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks indicated dissent.
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Lady disagrees, but I remember what happened in Liverpool after the riots that took place not only in Toxteth but other cities. The Heseltine proposals involved a combination of private and public enterprise and private and public investment. We all know
    846
    what happened to that scheme. The majority of the Cabinet turned it down because it did not want public involvement or problems solved partly by public effort.
    I am not denying that some good things have been done in Liverpool. I would be damn silly to deny something worth while which offers employment to a few of my constituents. Even minimal employment is better than no employment at all. The garden festival was very nice while it lasted, but the number of real jobs it created was very small. I refer also to the new dock developments. There is a new shopping complex, and the new Liverpool Tate gallery—of which I am much in favour, but some Liverpool people who have seen the exhibits there did not think they were much, and I agree. There is also a new yuppie housing estate. What is really needed are all those developments plus new jobs.
    Creating jobs means establishing new industry. How is that to be done? There used to be a system of regional assistance. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) claimed that Birmingham had suffered because of Labour incentive schemes that encouraged new business ventures in areas of high unemployment, but that type of incentive is still needed. I go further: there is a need for public ownership and developments so that we can stipulate the location of new industry.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Hicks) referred to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Liverpool has practically solved the problem of bed-and-breakfast families, and was slaughtered for it. Liverpool's Labour councillors were called all the names one could think of for building houses—nice, lovely, semi-detached houses for ordinary people. I am sure that some Conservative Members think that those houses are too good for the working class. The money to build them came not from the Government, because they made massive cuts in local authority grants. Instead, Liverpool council borrowed money from private enterprise at higher rates. Nevertheless, it had an obligation to provide decent accommodation. That policy is being continued under the new Labour administration.
    Liverpool has also new sports centres and parks, to provide the city with new lungs. However, much more needs to be done. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) claims that we have no new ideas. I can tell him of one new idea that I hope will be adopted when a Labour Government are elected. The first thing that a Labour Government should do is bring together all the local authorities and trade unions in the area—and I do not mind if the employers' organisations and Government Departments are represented as well. They should sit down and decide immediately what is required and how much the Government can provide to help to overcome the problem.
    I should have liked to say much more, but I shall conclude by making one more point to the Government. Some of my hon. Friends do not seem to understand why all those wonderful houses were being built in parts of London. Well, I understand it; I understand why they have been built along the line of the docks in Liverpool as well. The Government want to create a yuppie area where they hope that people will vote Tory and get rid of Labour Members of Parliament: their objective is as simple and as silly as that. What they should be doing is acting to meet the real needs of the people in such areas, and my party, if it were in government, would have the policies to do that.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: It is a well-known fact that the inner cities were discovered by the Conservative party during the last election campaign. That has been thoroughly chronicled. In next to no time the Prime Minister, with sensible shoes and handbag, was standing on a piece of waste ground in—if I remember correctly—Stockton, announcing its imminent colonisation. I am afraid that I must tell the Government what they are likely to know already—that those who live in those areas are unmoved and probably sceptical.
    We learned very little from the Chancellor of the Duchy's speech, except that he has a deep admiration for the politics of Mr. Keva Coombes—which shows a certain breadth of vision—and that he reads the trade supplements thoroughly, albeit with a rather naive enthusiasm.
    I want to say a few words about the problems in Scotland, where the scene is perhaps a little different but will nevertheless, I suspect, be familiar to many of my colleagues from south of the border. When the Secretary of State for Scotland makes his speech, I expect that we shall hear a good deal about GEAR—the Glasgow eastern area renewal scheme—and, no doubt, about the merchant city. Those things are, of course, worthy of comment. The GEAR scheme involved public investment of £300 million over nearly a decade. As the Secretary of State knows, the Government have been criticised a good deal for cutting short before its time a scheme started by the Labour Government, but I welcome what was achieved, and what has happened in the merchant city. The partnership between the public and private sectors reflects credit on all who were involved, including the city council.
    I hope that we shall not encounter something that has become very familiar in Scottish politics—the somewhat cynical opportunism with which Scottish Office Ministers have dealt with such matters. Double standards are well to the fore. In Scotland, if one brick is laid upon another or if a sod is turned in any part of the country, particularly in an inner city, a junior Minister from the Scottish Office will be there, appropriately enough, to take the plaudits and the credit.
    Mr. George Robertson: And the photographs.
    Mr. Dewar: Indeed.
    Ministers tend to boast about the services provided in inner-city areas, such as education and housing. We are led to believe that all the phenomenal progress is due to the good heartedness and deep belief in high public spending of such unlikely figures as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
    Mr. Hind rose—
    Mr. Dewar: No, I will not give way as I have only a short time in which to speak.
    Within days, the same figures are usually being paraded in a slightly different context to illustrate the profligacy and irresponsibility of the same councils. I am glad to see the Minister nodding in cheerful agreement—clearly he has enjoyed some recent examples. The merchant city is certainly an example of inner-city development in Glasgow, but one has only to walk a few hundred yards to
    848
    find oneself in a very different environment. For reasons that my Scottish colleagues will understand, I have been spending quite a bit of time there recently.
    As every hon. Member knows, unemployment in Scotland is far higher than it is in Great Britain as a whole. Seasonally adjusted figures published only a few days ago showed a Scottish unemployment rate of 9·7 per cent. However, much as we may argue about the basis on which those figures are compiled, one fact remains clear—that the Scottish unemployment rate is about 50 per cent. above the national average. In whole wards, not just collections of streets, in the inner cities of Glasgow, and also in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee, unemployment is as high as 25 or 30 per cent.
    I make no apology for mentioning Glasgow, Central, which is very much in the minds of everyone in Scottish politics at present. It is relevant, as it has the fifth highest unemployment rate of all the parliamentary constituencies of Great Britain and the worst in Scotland. It is a classic deprived inner-city area, where such problems are very real, and it has taken its share of the collapse of employment in Scotland. Regional employment changes mean that the number of employed and self-employed people has fallen by 118,000 in the past decade, and many instances have been in the inner cities.
    There are more homeless people and more social problems—for instance, the problem of simply maintaining housing stock—and no Government can be complacent about the facts. In 1979, 450,000 claimants and their dependants were in receipt of supplementary benefit. About 830,000 now receive income support. That represents the growth of poverty, and anyone with any knowledge of the demography and social shape of Scotland will know that much of that poverty is concentrated in inner cities, as are the problems of peripheral housing schemes.
    If the Minister wishes to see the impact on the health and social life of the population, he should look at "Glasgow: Healthy Cities Project", a position statement published recently by a weighty committee chaired by Dr. Thomson of the Greater Glasgow health board and including—to their credit—a number of the Minister's political friends. There is no doubt that the problem exists and can be seen.
    What is disappointing is the Scottish response. We have had "New Life for Urban Scotland", a typical new-style Scottish Office glossy. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) by telling him that it has the merit of containing only one picture of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It dealt largely with the peripheral schemes in Wester Hailes, Castlemilk, Whitfield and Ferguslie park. I make no complaint about that—they have real problems—but there was no mention of the inner cities.
    It would be hard to say where the cash is for the inner-cities programme in Scotland—the equivalent of what the Government are claiming to be providing south of the border. Scottish Enterprise is to retain its existing budget—the Housing Corporation budget combined with the Scottish Development Agency budget. There is little evidence that even the substantial £350 million budget of Scottish Homes has not been largely carved out of money that would otherwise have been available for housing in any event.
    I cannot go into detail, but I should say that I have looked long and hard for this new money. I have consulted

    849
    people who are not in politics, the technicians and practical men who administer such matters, and they have to concede that they cannot point to where it is—not, I believe, because they are blind or lack expertise, but because the new money is simply not there. The damage to the inner cities is being done by the Government's general policies—for instance, the housing policy that has allowed the figure that can be taken into the housing revenue account to fall from £125 million to £3 million, has allowed the contribution for every local authority house in Scotland to be cut from £238 to around £60 and has taken a cumulative total of billions from the rate support grant settlement.
    The inner-city areas will be particularly hit by the poll tax, because they are exactly the kind of poverty-stricken areas that will be left to pay a significantly higher percentage of local revenue raised than they did under the previous system. I challenge the Secretary of State to deny that. We have seen the murder of regional policy and regional incentives.
    I cannot resist a small competition to which hon. Members might like, in 15 seconds, to produce the answer. I ask the House what Julius Caesar would say if he landed on our shores today. I have the answer, because the Prime Minister told a doubtless astonished Conservative party conference at Perth that he would have no hesitation in saying, "I came, I saw, I invested." I must confess that my only regret is that the Secretary of State did not manage it in Latin.
    I recognise that there has been a remarkable change in the Government's approach to Scottish matters over the past few years. It used to be fashionable to abuse the Scots, to tell them that their story was a cautionary tale of the dependency culture and that all their faults were their own fault, but there has been an about-turn. We have invented the economic miracle. We are told that Scotland is the birthplace of Adam Smith, a perfect enterprise economy of which we can all be proud.
    It is unfair perhaps to dwell on conference speeches and I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State because it cannot be easy to know what to say to Scottish Tories gathered in Perth. I did not greatly admire his suggestion that my constituents were building frigates like fury or the hopeful suggestion that together we shall climb mountains. That is not in my immediate plans.
    What I welcome—I make a serious point here—is the rather tentative suggestion that the Secretary of State is interested in putting peace on the agenda in Scottish politics and building bridges between the Government and the people of Scotland. I do not want to overstate what he said. He described a case for a modest period of consolidation, but against the general background of argument, even that is of some significance. The tragedy was that the next day the Prime Minister arrived and stamped on the Secretary of State, making it clear that any bridges that he might build would quickly be torn down.
    Looking at the situation in the inner cities and in the Scottish economy generally, I hope that the Secretary of State did not make that speech simply to deceive. I hope that he meant what he said because it is important to Scotland and to the inner cities and areas of deprivation that we have a change of direction and that there are signs of a change of heart on the part of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be doing us a signal service if he showed a certain independence today
    850
    and indicated that that change of heart will come and that some of the Government's damaging policies will be abandoned.
    6.52 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when he explained to the House why he could not remain throughout the debate, might have undertaken to read the speeches that we have heard this evening because he would have heard not only from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but also from four of my hon. Friends a devastating response which must have made the Opposition wonder why they had chosen this subject for debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), who knows Birmingham better even that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, pointed to the massive improvements in the inner city of Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), in an effective fighting speech, pointed to the priorities for urban policy and the inadequacies of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that those localities which have had Labour-controlled local authorities for years, which are the highest spending local authorities, are those which seem still to have the most difficult problems, perhaps because of the control that has been exercised on them during those years. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) correctly emphasised that only by encouraging the business community to help create prosperity in those localities can one achieve the desired results.
    The most interesting and extraordinary remark by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was his reference to enterprise zones. He suggested that it was only inner-city landlords who had benefited from enterprise zones. I suspect that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not agree with that, as his right hon. Friend has clearly not visited Clydebank, which was made an enterprise zone in 1981. Had he done so, he would know that in the first six years after its designation it was not inner-city landlords who benefited—400 new businesses with more than 4,000 new jobs were created in that enterprise zone.
    Mr. Dewar: We welcome the progress made in the Clydebank enterprise zone, one third of which falls within my constituency, but does the Secretary of State agree that the main basis for that success has been the work of the Scottish Development Agency and the heavy public investment that has gone into the area?
    Mr. Rifkind: It was the work of the Scottish Development Agency with the funds provided by the Government. I am happy to acknowledge that.
    I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Garscadden had attached his name to the Opposition motion. At this point, I wish to do something unusual, Madam Deputy Speaker, and refer to the terms of the Opposition motion as judged against the speech by the hon. Gentleman and what has been achieved. The hon. Gentleman may care to read the motion—he has probably not done so up to now, so it would be useful for him to be reminded of it.

    851
    The motion refers to
    "total neglect of the inner city areas."
    Presumably that includes the city of Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman referred to the GEAR project in the east end of Glasgow. The motion that he has signed says that it has led to a "reduction in investment" over the past nine years. The hon. Gentleman confirms that. Does he regard £300 million of Government investment and £200 million of private sector investment in the GEAR area as a reduction in investment?
    The Opposition motion refers to
    "a decline in the quality of housing."
    Does that apply to the GEAR area where 6,000 houses have been either built or improved as a result of the Government's inner urban policy? The motion to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name also refers to the decline in schools. We know that the most controversial issue in Strathclyde at the moment is the attempt of the Labour-controlled authority to close schools, not to keep them open.
    When the motion that the hon. Gentleman has signed refers to what is described as
    "a deterioration in adequate health care",
    does he have in mind Glasgow—the best-funded health authority in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used to have a reputation for being laid back and rather composed. Now tantrums at the Dispatch Box are the order of the day. His intemperate remarks about the closure of schools show that he has not read his own Department's circulars about how he expects education authorities to bring school accommodation into line with the fall in school rolls.
    I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's praise for the GEAR project, which was planned and started by the Labour Government. Does he not accept that the impact of the community charge or poll tax, on housing benefit and other benefit changes mean a growth in poverty? Does he not accept that industrial investment in Scotland is now running at a lower rate than in 1979?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman carefully avoided the terms of the motion to which his name is attached. We are not talking about industrial investment in Scotland but about investment in the inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman knows that in GEAR, which is the biggest example of inner-urban investment in the United Kingdom, not only has investment been dramatic, not only has housing been restored and renovated, not only has health care been the most generous in any part of the United Kingdom but, as his own Labour-controlled district council has said, the urban regeneration there is the best example in the United Kingdom of what inner-city regeneration can do.
    Let us consider the attitude of the Opposition with regard to inner-urban policy. The hon. Gentleman concentrated his remarks on the city of Glasgow. We all know that there is a great deal of very proper pride in what has been achieved in Glasgow over the past 10 years. I paid a tribute to all those who have been involved, including Glasgow district council, Strathclyde regional council, local residents and the Scottish Office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to acknowledge that.
    852
    If we wish to see who has given the lead in achieving these objectives, the hon. Gentleman might care to mention the fact that the present Conservative Government and the Scottish Office provided the funding for Glasgow's conference and exhibition centres, 50 per cent. of the funding for the Burrell gallery, and all the funding for the Glasgow garden festival as well as designating Glasgow a city of culture for 1990. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give credit where credit is due, he should bear that in mind.
    My hon. Friends have demolished the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and the hon. Member for Garscadden does not need me to demolish his argument—he has only to read the Opposition motion to realise how inadequate his speech was. On that basis, I invite the House to vote for the Government amendment and to reject the Opposition motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 288.

    Division No. 209]

    [7pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Allen, Graham

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

    Anderson, Donald

    Dewar, Donald

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dixon, Don

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Douglas, Dick

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Barron, Kevin

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Battle, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Fatchett, Derek

    Beith, A. J.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bell, Stuart

    Fearn, Ronald

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

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

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fisher, Mark

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Flannery, Martin

    Boateng, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Boyes, Roland

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Bradley, Keith

    Foster, Derek

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Foulkes, George

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Fraser, John

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    George, Bruce

    Buckley, George J.

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Caborn, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hardy, Peter

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cartwright, John

    Haynes, Frank

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Clay, Bob

    Henderson, Doug

    Clelland, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cohen, Harry

    Home Robertson, John

    Coleman, Donald

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howells, Geraint

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Crowther, Stan

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Illsley, Eric

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ingram, Adam

    Darling, Alistair

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    853

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Prescott, John

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Radice, Giles

    Lambie, David

    Randall, Stuart

    Lamond, James

    Redmond, Martin

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Reid, Dr John

    Leighton, Ron

    Richardson, Jo

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Litherland, Robert

    Robertson, George

    Livsey, Richard

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Rogers, Allan

    Loyden, Eddie

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McAllion, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCartney, Ian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKelvey. William

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McLeish, Henry

    Skinner, Dennis

    Maclennan, Robert

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

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

    McWilliam, John

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

    Madden, Max

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Marek, Dr John

    Snape, Peter

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martlew, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Maxton, John

    Stott, Roger

    Meacher, Michael

    Strang, Gavin

    Meale, Alan

    Straw, Jack

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Vaz, Keith

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Wall. Pat

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Walley, Joan

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morley, Elliott

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Mullin, Chris

    Wilson, Brian

    Murphy, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Nellist, Dave

    Worthington, Tony

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Brien, William

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Ken Eastham and

    Pike, Peter L.

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bowis, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Allason, Rupert

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Amess, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Amos, Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Ashby, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Atkinson, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Baldry, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Burt, Alistair

    Batiste, Spencer

    Butcher, John

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Butler, Chris

    Bellingham, Henry

    Butterfill, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Benyon, W.

    Carrington, Matthew

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carttiss, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cash, William

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Body, Sir Richard

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Colvin, Michael

    854

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F rest)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Irvine, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Irving, Charles

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Jackson, Robert

    Cran, James

    Janman, Tim

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Kilfedder, James

    Dicks, Terry

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knapman, Roger

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Durant, Tony

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbastonj

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knowles, Michael

    Eggar, Tim

    Knox, David

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lang, Ian

    Evennett, David

    Latham, Michael

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fallon, Michael

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Favell, Tony

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lightbown, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lilley, Peter

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Franks, Cecil

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Freeman, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Gale, Roger

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, George

    Malins, Humfrey

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marlow, Tony

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mates, Michael

    Gorst, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Gow, Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing H)

    Mellor, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Grist, Ian

    Mills, Iain

    Ground, Patrick

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moate, Roger

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hannam, John

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Mudd, David

    Harris, David

    Neale, Gerrard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Needham, Richard

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayward, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heddle, John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Norris, Steve

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hill, James

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hind, Kenneth

    Page, Richard

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Paice, James

    Holt, Richard

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Howard, Michael

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

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

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Pawsey, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    855

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Price, Sir David

    Stern, Michael

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Stevens, Lewis

    Redwood, John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Renton, Tim

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Summerson, Hugo

    Riddick, Graham

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Thurnham, Peter

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rost, Peter

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Trippier, David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Walden, George

    Scott, Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Watts, John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wheeler, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Whitney, Ray

    Shelton, Sir William

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wilshire, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shersby, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Sims, Roger

    Wolfson, Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wood, Timothy

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Yeo, Tim

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Speller, Tony

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mr. David Maclean and

    Squire, Robin

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):
    The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 195.

    Division Number 210]

    [7.15 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brazier, Julian

    Alexander, Richard

    Bright, Graham

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Allason, Rupert

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

    Amess, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Amos, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Burns, Simon

    Ashby, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Butcher, John

    Atkinson, David

    Butler, Chris

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Butterfill, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carttiss, Michael

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Cash, William

    Bellingham, Henry

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Benyon, W.

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cormack, Patrick

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Couchman, James

    Boswell, Tim

    Cran, James

    Bottomley, Peter

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bowis, John

    Day, Stephen

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Devlin, Tim

    856

    Dicks, Terry

    Kilfedder, James

    Dorrell, Stephen

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dover, Den

    Knapman, Roger

    Durant, Tony

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Knowles, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knox, David

    Evennett, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Fallon, Michael

    Latham, Michael

    Favell, Tony

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lightbown, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Franks, Cecil

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Freeman, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Gale, Roger

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, George

    Malins, Humfrey

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marlow, Tony

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mates, Michael

    Gorst, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Gow, Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mellor, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Grist, Ian

    Mills, Iain

    Ground, Patrick

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moate, Roger

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hannam, John

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Mudd, David

    Harris, David

    Neale, Gerrard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Needham, Richard

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayward, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heddle, John

    Norris, Steve

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hill, James

    Page, Richard

    Hind, Kenneth

    Paice, James

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Holt, Richard

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Howard, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

    Pawsey, James

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Price, Sir David

    Irvine, Michael

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Irving, Charles

    Redwood, John

    Jack, Michael

    Renton, Tim

    Jackson, Robert

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Janman, Tim

    Riddick, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Key, Robert

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    857

    Rost, Peter

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Thurnham, Peter

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Tredinnick, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trippier, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shelton, Sir William

    Walden, George

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Watts, John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wheeler, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Sims, Roger

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wilshire, David

    Speller, Tony

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Squire, Robin

    Wood, Timothy

    Stern, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Stevens, Lewis

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mr. Mr. David Maclean.

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Allen, Graham

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Donald

    Cousins, Jim

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Crowther, Stan

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Cummings, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Darling, Alistair

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli

    Barron, Kevin

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Battle, John

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

    Beckett, Margaret

    Dewar, Donald

    Beith, A. J.

    Dixon, Don

    Bell, Stuart

    Dobson, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Doran, Frank

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

    Douglas, Dick

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Boateng, Paul

    Eadie, Alexander

    Boyes, Roland

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bradley, Keith

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fatchett, Derek

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

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

    Buckley, George J.

    Fisher, Mark

    Caborn, Richard

    Flannery, Martin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Foster, Derek

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Foulkes, George

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fraser, John

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Cartwright, John

    George, Bruce

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clay, Bob

    Gordon, Mildred

    Clelland, David

    Gould, Bryan

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Cohen, Harry

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coleman, Donald

    Grocott, Bruce

    858

    Hardy, Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mullin, Chris

    Haynes, Frank

    Murphy, Paul

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Nellist, Dave

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Brien, William

    Hinchliffe, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Home Robertson, John

    Patchett, Terry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Howells, Geraint

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Randall, Stuart

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Reid, Dr John

    Illsley, Eric

    Richardson, Jo

    Ingram, Adam

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Janner, Greville

    Robertson, George

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kennedy, Charles

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lambie, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lamond, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Sheerman, Barry

    Leighton, Ron

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Livsey, Richard

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

    Loyden, Eddie

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McAllion, John

    Snape, Peter

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Spearing, Nigel

    McCartney, Ian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Stott, Roger

    McKelvey, William

    Strang, Gavin

    McLeish, Henry

    Straw, Jack

    Maclennan, Robert

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Turner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Vaz, Keith

    Madden, Max

    Wall, Pat

    Marek, Dr John

    Walley, Joan

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Martlew, Eric

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Maxton, John

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Meacher, Michael

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Meale, Alan

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Michael, Alun

    Winnick, David

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Worthington, Tony

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Morley, Elliott

    Mr. Ken Eastham and

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes recent falls in unemployment in the inner cities and the increasing level of investment in their regeneration; notes with approval the growing commitment of the private sector and the improved partnership between the private sector, voluntary organisations and central and local government in tackling inner city problems; and looks forward to continued progress under Action for Cities and other programmes designed to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom share fully in the increasing prosperity of the nation as a whole.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that this Bill is due to have its Third Reading tonight, but in Committee it was not discussed on its own. It went in with another Bill that had been given a Second Reading—the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. That Bill is missing from tonight's debate.
Is it in procedural order for this to happen, because it means that we cannot have a full debate on the Committee's proceedings?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House on this matter. He is quite correct to say that the two Bills were committed to the same Private Bill Committee and that only one of them is now before the House; but I cannot speculate on why the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill has not yet been reported by the Committee. There is no procedural impediment to the House proceeding with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman has arguments to deploy about why this Bill should not be read a Third time today, I am sure that he will advance them during the debate.
7.29 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Committee has considered the Bill and—
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a previous occasion when the Bill was being debated, I asked on a point of order whether it was hybrid, and Mr. Deputy Speaker made a ruling, with the aid of the Clerk, who had gone through the Bill and was convinced that it fell within the private Bill procedure. Both Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means accepted that it was in order because the Clerk was acting for and on behalf of the Speaker's Office. One man made that decision, a man who was not a Member of Parliament, and as far as I am aware, they crucified the only man who never made a mistake.
Even at this late stage I ask you to rule, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill is a hybrid for the following reason. The Committee's report said:
"In effect, we have been invited to make a strategic decision affecting UK energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade … The Committee does not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small Committee".
That point was agreed by both the promoters of the Bill and the people who were opposing it, Mr. Feickert, Mr. Morrison and Sir Frank Layfield. It concluded:
"The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national Government."
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the fact that, if a Bill affects a national interest, it must be hybrid and a Bill that the Government should be introducing. Therefore, I ask you to rule at this late stage, in view of the conclusions made by the Committee, that the Bill is hybrid and therefore should not be debated.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that the Bill is not hybrid. Its provisions fall within our private Bill procedure. I have read carefully the report of the Committee and I am prepared to allow a wide debate on Third Reading so that hon. Members may refer to the report.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you explain why the amendments that have been tabled have not been selected? The House is entitled to such an explanation, because many of these amendments are important. I am aware that the Bill was not amended in Committee, but that should not preclude hon. Members from moving amendments on Third Reading. I would welcome an explanation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think I can clear this matter up. Had there been no points of order and had I been allowed to make a statement, I would have done so on behalf of Mr. Speaker, who has examined with great care the verbal amendments tabled to the Bill. He is satisfied that all of them either alter the effect of the Bill and are therefore out of order, or are not necessary for the correction of the Bill, which is the purpose of verbal amendments. Therefore, he has not selected them. Furthermore, in accordance with practice, Mr. Speaker has not selected the six-months amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and others.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, about three Fridays ago, there was an amendment to a Third Reading. It came about because the Government had passed on to a Back-Bench Tory Member a Bill that is called, in parliamentary terms, an "off-the-shelf" Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not know what was in it, and apologised for that. He was given the Bill, it was nodded through its Second Reading and not amended in Committee and then we came to Third Reading three Fridays ago. The Bill, the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, was aimed at extending the areas where smoke control could be applied by local authorities and central Government, but it had the wrong long title, which was aimed at repealing all the Clean Air Acts.
The Government were very embarrased, as was the hon. Member who introduced the Bill. If only he had known what was in the Bill. As a result, at this embarrassing moment, the Clerks and Mr. Speaker together were able to find a way around the matter. Because it was not the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which will put tremendous pressure on the balance of trade, the Government went along—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: Just a minute. There is no need to start shuffling yet.
The Government went along and changed the title of the Bill on Third Reading, and they thought they could do this on the nod. However, one or two of us found out about it. This process had not been used for 19 years. The amendment did not result because somebody was earnestly trying, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), to amend a

861
Bill. It was because the Government and the Back-Bench Member had presented the Bill without its proper title. The Government managed to find a way around that.
I find it odd in this place, where we are supposed to be looking after the interests of everybody, that when on Third Reading, we table 20-odd amendments that are sensible and will change the nature of the Bill, they are swept aside by some ruling or another. However, if the Government make a cock-up of it, they are able to get away with an amendment on Third Reading.
As it happens, the Bill will have to go to another place, which may amend it. However, I say that this Bill should go back. As to all the more than 20 amendments to the Bill that have been tabled, Mr. Speaker should he called upon to enact the ruling that he gave three Fridays ago.
While I am about it, I want to know whether all those 70 Tory Members of Parliament who have connections with firms that trade in South Africa, will declare their interest. I want to know whether they will stand up and tell us how many free trips to South Africa they have had, how many are members of the goose-stepping tendency, how many are representing Johannesburg. We should know, because the Bill will allow South African coal to come into this country, cause a massive burden on the balance of payments and line the pockets of Tory Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the second point, I am sure that all hon. Members who have an interest will declare it. On the first point, I am certain that the hon. Member will understand that I have no authority to alter or vary Mr. Speaker's decision, which I am sure the House will uphold and respect.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the occupier of the Chair, you have to ensure that justice is done. As I understand it, on a public Bill, if there is a tied vote in Committee and the Chair of the Committee has to give a casting vote, that more or less guarantees that the matter is considered again when it returns to the Floor of the House, because it would be wrong for the person occupying the Chair to decide the details of a Bill.
Throughout the Committee proceedings on this Bill, the votes were tied to two each way with one of those two people acting as Chair and giving a casting vote. As I understand it, in those circumstances it is reasonable for the issues then to be further considered by the House. None of the amendments has been selected, so the second casting vote of the Chair has deprived the House of the opportunity to debate all the issues that were decided in Committee by that vote.
I understand that the promoters of the Bill went so far as to plead with the Committee that there should be no amendments so as to avoid a Report stage, when the House would have the opportunity properly to scrutinise the issues on which he Committee decided. That is a misuse of parliamentary proceedings. One individual should not be able, by casting his vote in the Committee, to ensure that the House does not have an opportunity to debate amendments that would be in order had one amendment been accepted in Committee.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule on the way in which the casting vote was used in Committee, not only to avoid the issues being defeated in Committee, but to deprive the House of the opportunity of considering the Bill on Report, and therefore the
862
opportunity to question the way in which that hon. Member cast his vote. That seems a very odd procedure. I realise that a special Committee is examining procedures on private Bills, but it seems unique for an hon. Member to use a second casting vote to deprive the entire House of the opportunity to debate any of the amendments. That raises serious issues about the sovereignty of this country and Parliament over whether the import of coal should be decided in that way. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule that an hon. Member cannot use a casting vote to deny the House the opportunity to debate certain issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker: We have to deal with the procedures of the House as they exist, and if we need to amend them, so be it. However, I cannot deal with hypothetical situations. Extremely valuable debating time is being used up. I know that many hon. Members, most of whom are in the Chamber now, wish to speak in the Third Reading debate. I hope that Members who raise points of order will bear that in mind.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all recognise your difficulty, in that, Mr. Speaker having ruled, you cannot set aside that ruling, whatever new points have been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Belper and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is quite possible that, in reaching his conclusion not to select any of the amendments, Mr. Speaker did not have in mind the argument mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bolsover."] I seldom apologise at the Dispatch Box, but in this case I really should go down on my knees and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, because we all understand that the overriding requirement on anyone exercising a casting vote from the Chair is that he casts that vote in a way which enables the debate to continue and does not curtail it.
Since you are in no position to overrule Mr. Speaker's rulings, it might be helpful if you were to suspend the sitting and ask Mr. Speaker to consider the matters that have been raised and rule on whether the debate should go ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Nothing has been said to make that necessary. The Bill is in very good order and the House would do well to begin the debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order from Dr. Clark, which I hope is a point of order and not a point that has developed in Committee.
Dr. Michael Clark: It most certainly is a point of order. I take great offence at the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who implied that I used a casting vote improperly in Committee. I would not have raised this point of order had you defended my use of the casting vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, but since you have not done so, it is essential that I defend myself. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, probably by mistake, said that I used two casting votes on the same issue—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope all hon. Members will understand that the debate has nothing whatsoever to do with what occurred in Committee. We

863
have a Third Reading debate before us this evening, and according to our Standing Orders that is the only thing that we can debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We would be wise if we now proceeded with that Third Reading debate. Mr. Hardy.
Dr. Michael Clark rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall do my best to take all points of order in turn. I have called Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have three points of order, but as one is of substantial length it might be better accommodated in my speech. As you have said, the House is eager to start this wretched debate.
My first point of order is that I went to the Vote Office a few moments ago to obtain the Hansard for 23 June last year. As you will recall, the Second Reading debate on the Bill took place on 11 May and 23 June last year. I needed to look up something in regard to the report of the second day of the Second Reading on 23 June, only to find that that Hansard is out of print. It is hardly reasonable for the House to debate the Third Reading of the Bill when the Hansard for the Second Reading is not available.
My second point of order concerns amendments on Third Reading. When I looked into the matter, I discovered that oral amendments had to be presented some days in advance and had to appear on the Order Paper. I do not challenge that ancient and historic practice. However, I understand that sometimes in certain circumstances, verbal and oral amendments can be tabled. Outside the House, there may seem to be little difference between verbal and oral amendments, but there is a difference, and as none of our oral amendments has been accepted, can any verbal amendments be presented, considered or accepted on Third Reading? I hope that you can advise the House on both my points of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No manuscript amendments can be accepted and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands my point about Mr. Speaker looking very carefully at the verbal amendments which were tabled and ruling them out. On his first point of order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Members might have found the Hansard in the Library, but I am sure his point will be noted.
Dr. Michael Clark: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order is very brief. When chairing that Committee, I acted within the powers that existed for the Committee to use. I took my responsibilities seriously. I greatly resent the comments made by Opposition Members and I would greatly appreciate it if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will confirm that the casting vote was properly used.
Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no doubt whatsoever that the Chairman of that Committee acted properly and used his casting vote in a very proper manner.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have ruled
864
that we should not discuss anything that took place in Committee but you are required to give us guidance before the debate proceeds, as a very unusual procedure took place. Although we have the Committee report, in its wisdom the Committee has presented a special report to Parliament. I believe that the House should know the standing of that special report to Parliament in our debate, as that report is unique. If I catch your eye later, I might make some comments on why it is unique.
Since the ruling was given that no amendments were to be considered—the House respects the fact that Mr. Speaker has given his guidance—a new light has been cast on the debate, which will proceed as a consequence of the special report. I want your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. What standing does the special report have? Without going into the merits of the special report—although we may do later on—to some extent it says to the House that we should not have been dealing with the matter in any case. That is a good reason why the amendments should have been allowed to be considered, why the debate should be suspended and why we should proceed no further.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point is a matter for debate. He may have missed hearing me say earlier that the special report produced for us by the Committee can form part of this debate.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last year, when the Housing Bill was on Report, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling. When over 170 Government amendments were tabled, including new clauses and substantial amendments to change the Bill in relation to ballots on housing action trusts, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling, after considerable debate, points of order and interventions from both Front Benches, that he would accept such substantive amendments on Report, and the debate subsequently took place. That seems to run contrary to his decision on our amendments tonight, which has curtailed the ability of Back Benchers to consider primary legislation. That is an affront to the House and especially to hon. Members with constituencies that will be substantially affected by the Bill. Mr. Speaker should come back to the House and reconsider his previous ruling.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a wholly different situation. Only in the rarest of circumstances are amendments taken on Third Reading, with which we are now dealing. I hope that the House will now proceed with Third Reading.
Mr. Michael Brown: I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
7.51 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: We have just heard a substantial discussion on the role of the Committee and the way in which decisions were taken in that Committee on the casting vote of the chairman. There is no doubt that that was a blatant political decision by the Conservative Members who served on the Committee. If the Government wanted the Bill, they should have introduced it themselves and should not have abused the private Bill procedure. When the Bill went into Committee, it was as clear as daylight what the result would be. The two key votes on the Bill were decided by the casting vote of the

865
Chairman. I do not know what the Chairman's position is on a private Bill. Should he intervene in this debate? I would welcome your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, in that regard.
I speak in opposition to the Bill not as an hon. Member representing a mining constituency, but as representing taxpayers and an inner-city area, which will be affected directly by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred a few moments ago to the balance of payments deficit afflicting us at present. It is worth reminding the House that the deficit is running at about £14·4 billion. The Bill will add to the deficit. We shall have imports of coal from areas to which the Labour party is politically opposed, such as South Africa and parts of south America. Polish coal will be imported and we are opposed to that as a basis for breaking the British mining industry and contributing to the balance of payments deficit.
The Bill will also directly affect the electricity supply industry. We have been told clearly that with privatisation, the electricity industry's previous commitment to take virtually the whole of its coal from British coalfields will be dropped. We know that at present, the electricity supply industry takes between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all coal produced in the United Kingdom. If that commitment is no longer there, what will be the effect on the British coal industry? What will be the effect on the areas that are supposed to be rich in coal and which have pits with a long life? I am thinking of vast areas of Nottinghamshire.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Even though we have excellent pits in my constituency in Nottinghamshire, we have almost 17 per cent. unemployment in the Worksop travel-to-work area. If the Bill is passed, that figure will double or treble. The Government have withheld permission for the West Burton power station until the Bill is passed. If the Government are to have power stations, they intend that they be run on the cheap coal about which my right hon. Friend is talking.
Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention because he represents an area such as I have described. There are Conservative Members who represent parts of Nottinghamshire who happen to be here at present. They were elected—for whatever wrong reasons—to represent their constituents. It cannot be denied that they represent constituents who will be directly affected by the Bill.
We are debating tonight not a narrow issue of people trying to protect jobs—valid as that is within their own community—but an issue that has a direct bearing on the economy of the United Kingdom. We are debating not a small development, but an aspect of the United Kingdom economy which will have lasting effects. I know from reports that the proposals strike at the heart of Britain's coal industry and coal-fired generating capacity. Seven major power stations lie within 50 miles of the mouth of the Humber. Those stations took almost 37 million tonnes of coal from British Coal in 1987–88. Half the entire Central Electricity Generating Board coalburn is within 100 miles of the proposed development. The Nottingham power stations of Cotham and West Burton are the most vulnerable to imports through the Humber, but at import levels of 4 million to 5 million tonnes per annum, Eggborough, Ferrybridge, High Marnham and Thorpe Marsh will also be receiving foreign coal.
866
What did we hear from the Government about the mining industry during the miners' strike? They said that they wanted an efficient industry and that, although the future would be painful and many pits would have to shut, the pits that were to remain open were promised that Eldorado was round the corner and that they would have a rosy future. However, now—only a short time after the Government made those pronouncements—we are seeing the very pits and the miners who were praised by the Government being thrown on the scrap heap by their policies. What sense is there in such a policy? What sense in a country that is self-sufficient in coal? What is the sense in turning our backs on an industry that we shall need in the latter part of this century and in the next?
My hon. Friends who come from the coal industry do not need me to tell them the answers because they are fully aware that once an area has had its coal production removed, and once pits have been closed, it is impossible to reopen them and that fresh proposals and fresh developments would be needed.
Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that important point. Because of the problems of gas and water, the Coal Board still has to leave a significant safety margin before it can exploit any coal from exhausted pits in which all the seams have been worked, or rather from pits that deemed to have passed their useful life or which the Coal Board deem are not making sufficient profit. It is not just a question of reopening pits or of sinking new shafts in close proximity The danger is that not only has the pit been stopped, but the coal around it has, in effect, been sterilised.
Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend, with his background and expertise, for making clear exactly IA hat would happen in such an area.
The proposals in the Bill would most directly threaten collieries in the east midlands, Yorkshire and County Durham. They go as wide as that, as I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent those areas will acknowledge. Those areas have already paid a heavy price for British Coal's rationalisation and restructuring programme. However, such communities now face the loss of their more efficient and more productive pits, many of which have received substantial investment in recent years.
Mr. Barron: From the examples that we have seen in the past, will my right hon. Friend confirm the multiplying effect? In the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in his place, Blidworth colliery has recently closed although it still has 40 million tonnes of coal reserves. A £30 million investment programme has just been completed there under the "Plan for Coal", yet its shafts were filled in five weeks ago because British Coal said that it did not want it any more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the multiplying effect will affect many other areas if these proposed ports go ahead?
Mr. Orme: I was just about to come to a point about the collieries and the effect that the Bill will have on them. Over 25 collieries in the central and north-eastern coalfields have been identified as at risk from the Humber ports. Up to 10 pits will be displaced by 4 million to 5 million tonners, and at least 15 pits will be closed by the 10-million tonners. Even allowing for the wave of redundancies that was announced recently by British Coal,

867
24,000 miners' jobs are at risk. I advise those who are sponsoring the Bill that they are throwing skilled people on the scrap heap—[Interruption.] Yes, some people may laugh about it, but Opposition Members are not laughing. We are talking about communities, and I shall deal later with one community that will be affected by the changes that will flow from the proposals.
The coalfield economies are highly dependent on the coal industry and it is realistic to use a multiplier of two to assess the knock-on effects. Every colliery job that is lost will lead to one more loss in other sectors. If 15 collieries close, the total impact will be more than 30,000 job losses. That is what I am saying to those from the east and west midlands, from Lancashire and from the north-east. Indeed, that effect will stretch as far as the Welsh and Scottish coalfields. The coal industry will be weakened.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I lived through the miners' strike. I was an energy spokesman and heard the Government's arguments, which were, "We have a prosperous industry and if we concentrate on the prosperous and long-life pits and if investment is given to those areas, we will see not only a prosperous industry, but jobs, good production and good wages." However, at the heart of the current argument is the fact that people are being threatened with pit closures because of cheap coal being brought into the United Kingdom.
That importation of cheap coal will have a special impact on the coal-producing regions of Yorkshire. If new coal import facilities are provided on the Humber, their natural catchment areas will be the power stations in the Aire valley and in the lower Trent valley, which are now served largely by collieries in the Nottingham and Yorkshire coalfields.
If my hon. Friends from the Doncaster area will allow me to trespass on their constituencies, I shall deal specifically with the Bill's impact on that area. As I am sure my hon. Friends will confirm, the six collieries operating in the Doncaster metropolitan borough area all produce coal for use by local power stations. Coal from Rossington colliery is used at the Drax power station; coal from Brodsworth, Markham Main and Hatfield is used at Thorpe Marsh power station; and coal from the Askern Main and Bentley collieries is used at Eggborough power station. All the pits in the Doncaster borough area could be at risk from the importation of cheap coal. As my hon. Friends can confirm, we are talking about prosperous pits.
Reference to the Doncaster economy shows that the area already has severe economic problems which are the legacy of an association with the coal mining industry in the past century. Those problems include an unemployment rate which is nearly double the average for Great Britain as a whole.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend has made a valid point because the Rossington pit has produced 1 million tonnes of coal so far this year and is turning in a hell of a profit. I wonder whether those who are sponsoring the Bill understand the poverty and despair of a pit village once the centre of its life has disappeared. Is their concept of poverty the same as that of the Secretary of State for Social Security? I cannot tell the House what constituency he represents. I do not think that he lives in a constituency in
868
this country, as he has not yet met poverty. The sponsors of the Bill cannot have met poverty, or they would not have sponsored it.
Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am referring to an area with which he is familiar to show the effects upon one area. We can talk globally, but sometimes it is difficult to grasp the full effect. The closure of any of the remaining collieries in the Doncaster borough will have a dramatic effect on the local community and will exacerbate an already serious problem.
The Askern community is an example of an area that is dependent on one traditional industry and the problems that will arise if a colliery is closed down. Other mining communities are in a similar position. Askern is within the Doncaster area. The Doncaster metropolitan borough council wishes to make known the likely severe economic and social consequences that will arise if the Bill is passed, and it has petitioned hon. Members to that effect.
The Doncaster metropolitan borough forms part of South Yorkshire. It has a population of 290,000 and an area of 225 square miles. The coal mining industry in that area includes the Bentley, Askern, Thorne, Armthorpe, Rossington and Mexborough collieries. Most of the area's economic problems stem from its narrow economic base. Its economic base is narrow because it was built on coal, and it still needs coal and depends on it. One cannot say that the collieries are not producing efficiently or have no life. In other parts of the world they would be regarded as prosperous. They are being sacrificed so that cheap coal can be imported into the United Kingdom.
Mr. Skinner: Cheap for how long?
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend asks a good question.
Mr. Skinner: A good analogy is the 1960s, when we were told that there was a lot of cheap oil. People said, "We will replace the dear coal in Britain. We want to get miners out of the pits. We will shut the pits, as we have all that cheap oil in the middle east." After about 10 or 15 years, there was a change in the middle east, the price of oil quadrupled and miners were suddenly wanted again. All the talk about cheap imports should be regarded against that background. As soon as other countries get a grip on the energy industry in this country, they will do what was done with the oil industry.
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When such people break the power of British industry, they will be in a position to extract from Britain what they want at the time, especially if we are dependent on coal imports. Would any other major industrialised nation, with the oil, gas and coal resources that we have, turn its back on its wealth and say, "We will leave it in the ground"?
I have been endeavouring to illustrate the economic problems that face small areas such as Askern. It is worth noting that, in many areas, the mining industry employs a high proportion of the local work force. Although efforts have been made to broaden their industrial bases, the economic prosperity of such areas is still substantially tied to developments in the coal mining industry. In 1984, the latest year for which figures are available, the industry employed 16 per cent. of the work force in the Doncaster metropolitan borough area, compared with 1·1 per cent. throughout Great Britain.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Askern is a special case. It will be bumped if the Bill is passed. It is a special case for me also because I lived at Askern, and my father was killed in a pit there in 1935. Askern means a lot to me. Also, 73 per cent. of its male population works at Askern pit. There just ain't any more work. In the summer of 1987, 190-odd kiddies left school, and only 44 got jobs. Those people live in a beautiful area and they should be looked after. Any hon. Member who would introduce a Bill to close that quarry has no compassion. If hon. Members have no compassion, they should not sit in this Chamber and talk about politics.
Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the knowledge that he brings to the House. I regret the tragedies that he has seen in that area. I referred to Askern as an example of what happens to a community when a major industry closes down.
I live in and represent the Salford constituency in the Greater Manchester area in the north-west of England. We in that area have seen coal, steel and engineering virtually disappear. As I said only the other night in a debate on the manufacturing industry, our community was a major engineering area. It was almost within throwing distance of the start of the industrial revolution. Having seen those industries disappear, we have seen rising unemployment, despite the alleged improvement in unemployment figures. There is still large-scale male unemployment—never mind female unemployment—in inner-city wards in my constituency. If we proceed with the Bill tonight and it reaches the statute book, the effects which have been felt in Doncaster will be felt in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.
Mr. McCartney: My right hon. Friend has referred to colliery closures in Lancashire. The last colliery in my constituency since the miners' strike is now to be closed.
In addition, the support industries and mining technology industries, including the long-wall mining technology industry in my constituency—which includes Gullick Dobson—have suffered hundreds of redundancies because the deep-mining industry in Britain has been run down. We risk losing that industry completely. At the moment there is an expansion in the world coal industry of which we cannot take advantage because this Government's policies have disrupted the home market.
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is aware that imported cheap coal will have the same effect in Lancashire as it will have in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere.
Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend is talking about areas being run down. He should consider the Barnsley coalfield which used to be one of the most prosperous in the country. I had 13 collieries in my constituency; I now have none. We must also consider the fact that we brought men down from Scotland and Durham to work in our collieries. The collieries which are now in danger, including Darfield, Houghton, Grimethorpe and Denby Grange are the only collieries left in the Barnsley coalfield in which hundreds of immigrant miners from other areas made their lives and married the girls. We have an obligation to them. Will my right hon. Friend consider the miners who might be made redundant?
Mr. Orme: I acknowledge the wealth of experience which my hon. Friend brings to this debate. He is absolutely correct: what he describes will happen if cheap coal is imported.
I am advised that many of my colleagues want to take part in the debate, and I will therefore be brief.
Mr. Ashton: My right hon. Friend is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. The Labour party is undergoing a review of its policies on which we will light the next general election. I hope that the people listening and the sponsors of the Bill will understand the consequences. I hope that we will send a message loud and clear that when the Labour party wins the next general election, these ports will not see the light of day. They are wasting their time laying down the foundations and spending money even if the Bill receives its Third Reading.
Mr. Orme: There is no doubt about where the Labour party stands on this issue. We are completely opposed to the Bill. We will not see these proposals implemented.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this point for me? If the ports have been constructed and are operating when the next general election is held, will a future incoming Labour Government shut them down?
Mr. Orme: We would not allow the cheap importation of coal through those ports. That is a categorical pledge to the House.
I could have quoted more instances of local areas which would be affected by the Bill. Hon. Members are aware that the Bill will not help British industry. It will be against the interests of the coal mining industry and of the economy as a whole. We should not proceed with the Bill, and I hope that the House will take that decision this evening.
8.24 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: I want to begin by referring to a comment made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who asked whether it was usual for Committee Members to speak in a Third Reading debate. I inquired into that and was advised that as a general rule Committee Members did not speak in Third Reading debates. I discovered that it was a general convention, not a rule, that all Committee Members decided jointly that they would abstain from speaking in debates following Committee meetings. We agreed in Committee that we would not speak during the carry-over motion for this Bill, but when we discussed what should happen on Third Reading Labour members of the Committee decided that they wanted to speak because they were, rightly, the most informed people in the House with regard to the Bill.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and his colleagues will confirm that they wanted to speak. As the convention was not a strict convention, but could be modified according to the wishes of the Committee, we agreed that we would, if called, put our points of view on Third Reading. At the request of Labour members of the Committee, we agreed that each of us would speak if called.
Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so kind and considerate to the Labour members of

871
the Committee, but why was he so tolerant on that occasion? Why did he not use his casting vote to rule that they could not speak?
Dr. Clark: I want to consider another point made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East with regard to influence that might have been brought to bear on to Members on the Committee, particularly Conservative Members.
Mr. Eadie: Since the hon. Gentleman has decided to take part in the debate, he must take part in what I would call the rough and tumble of debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked him a fair question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour members of the Committee were the best informed about the Bill. If he concedes that they are the best informed, why did he vote against them in Committee?
Dr. Clark: I said that the Labour Members said that Committee members were the most informed Members of the House in respect of this Bill. It would be wrong to deny the most informed Members of the House the opportunity to speak and to present their views.
I will present my views very briefly and I imagine that the hon. Member for Bradford, North will try to present his views. It would be wrong for the hon. Member for Bradford, North to keep quiet when he has heard 26 days of evidence on the Bill. He must wish to present some of his views and findings to the House. I conceded that he had a good point and we agreed jointly that we would speak. I believe that I have answered the point.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has decided to speak tonight. The House will be aware that on an earlier occasion and again tonight, often from sedentary positions, my hon. Friend's honour has been called into question. There have been comments that he has an interest. I know that the vast majority of hon. Members know my hon. Friend to be honourable. In his best interests, perhaps he should try to show in his speech before he considers the Bill just what is this rather strange and tenuous interest of which he has been accused.
Dr. Clark: I will gladly answer my hon. Friend's point. I did not declare my interest at the beginning of my speech because I did not believe that I had one, but I will elaborate on the point.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is the only Member who took a Government Bill through a Committee but did not get a ministerial salary.
Dr. Clark: If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) listens, he will discover that I do not have much of an interest to declare. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill were taken at the same time. An hon. Member said that I had an interest which I should declare because one of the two joint sponsors of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was a subsidiary of a company called Simon Engineering. Another subsidiary of Simon Engineering was a member of a trade association to which I am parliamentary adviser. It so happens that we are not today discussing the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill but the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I have no
872
connection, however tenuous or contrived, with any interests in that Bill. It might also interest hon. Members to know that I voted against the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill going through unamended, so I do not know how they can accuse me of having a biased interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking about my interest in this matter.
I declare two other interests. I declare an interest in that I was born, brought up and went to school in Nottinghamshire, and I went to school with many coal miners' sons. Some of my own family worked in the pits in Manton and Bevercotes, so I declare an interest in the coal mining industry and in making sure that it thrives in my home county. I also declare an interest in Lincolnshire, where other members of my family live. My grandfather came from there and all my cousins live there. I therefore declare an interest in wanting Lincolnshire to be prosperous, and the Bill will help to achieve that.
Mr. Hardy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect at least. As Chairman of the Committee, it may be unusual for him to speak, but it may be appropriate in this debate, as he will recall that his Committee struck a serious note about the consequences for the British mining industry of the imports that we are debating in the special report provided by the Committee. I expected the hon. Member for Briggs and Cleethorpes, (Mr. Brown) to comment in his speech on the serious note that that Committee struck, but all we had was sniggering, brief, arrogant introduction, without a word of justification and without a word of observation on that serious report. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has this chance to comment on that report in view of the negligence or hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who failed to do so.
Dr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My speech, which I hope will be short, revolves around that precise point—the importance of the special report.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East said that this was a political Bill, probably sponsored or influenced by the Government or the Conservative party. I wish to state categorically that before sitting on the Committee I had no contact with my party Whips. No approach was made to me during that Committee, which sat from October to February, and there has been no contact since. [Interruption.] I say in all seriousness and on my honour that there was no approach by my party Whips before, during or after the sittings of the Committee. Lest there be any confusion, I also state that there was no approach by Ministers or any office of the Conservative party or the Government before, during or after the Committee sittings.
It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that when a promoter, in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), is anxious to get his Bill through the House, it is usual for him to circulate his hon. Friends to see whether they will support the Bill on Third Reading. Whether or not my hon. Friend has done that—I suspect that he has—I have had no request from him to vote for the Bill today and I suspect that he has not sent any such request to other members of the Committee.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman tells us about his family background and talks about his honour, but there is a general view among

873
Opposition Members that the hon. Gentleman protests too much. The hon. Gentleman's party is determined to get the Bill through and its promoter makes a habit of going to South Africa and, disgracefully, does not speak properly.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), despite all his piousness, tells us that he had something to do with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which my hon. Friends—many of whom have long experience—feel should have led him to say that he would not chair the Committee due to his deep interest in the Bill. I am at a loss to understand how an hon. Member so deeply embedded in a cause could have chaired the Committee. Two Bills have been divided and there is something sick and wrong going on here tonight. Many of us believe that it should be looked into before the Bill proceeds any further.
Dr. Clark: I thought that it would be a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that I had an interest in the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. I explained the accusations that were made against me. I did not declare an interest.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Clark: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman is brief.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should really come clean and explain to the House that he is a paid parliamentary adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, a subsidiary of which in Hull is one of the promoters of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had any decency he would not be taking any part in the proceedings on the Bill.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and what he has left out, I believe that proceedings should be brought to a halt.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the House will not impugn the motives of members of the Committee who sat for many hours and produced a special report which is before the House. The House would be well advised to discuss the merits of the Bill and the special report which came from the Committee.
Dr. Clark: I must respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Once again he is totally wrong.
Mr. Skinner: No, I am not.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong.
Mr. Skinner: It is in the Register of Members' Interests, but that does not say how much money the hon. Gentleman gets.
Dr. Clark: The Bill is promoted by Associated British Ports which, so far as I know, has nothing whatever to do with Simon Engineering.
Mr. Skinner: Simon Carves.
Dr. Clark: It has nothing whatever to do with Simon Engineering or Simon Carves. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is getting it all backwards and has not the integrity to try to speak the truth when accusing other hon. Members of impropriety.
874
It was generally agreed in Committee that, had it not been for the coal issue, the Bill, promoted by Associated British Ports, would probably have gone through Committee and the House largely unopposed. Associated British Ports wanted facilities to import iron ore, other chemicals and raw materials necessary for industry in Lincolnshire and the north of England, and to export steel, cereals and finished products.
It was also clearly stated that Associated British Ports needed a larger facility on the Humber if it was to compete with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp. If it did riot have larger facilities it was feared that our port industry would decline even further than it has done so far. The Committee was sympathetic to extending Britain's ports to make sure that we were not dependent on continental ports and break cargoes from the continent to Britain. It is therefore fair to say that had it not been for the coal issue there would have been little opposition in Committee and perhaps in the House.
British Coal was one of the petitioners against the Bill. There were many others—local authorities, the National Union of Mineworkers arid the National Union of Railwaymen, but all of those wanted to reject the Bill in total. British Coal wished to make an amendment to the effect that no coal should be brought in through the port until 1996, by which time British Coal would have managed to increase its productivity still further, reduced its production costs and generally got its cost of coal down closer to the price of cheap coal on the world market. British Coal said, in effect, "Give us six or seven years, through an amendment to the Bill, and at the end of that time we shall no longer need to be protected because we shall have made fantastic strides in bringing down the price of British coal." British Coal therefore said, "Protect us for those years and we will be content—we shall require no protection after 1996."
The question then arose of how much coal was likely to come in through the dock if it were constructed, and the promoter said 2·5 million tonnes. The Committee in general—Labour Members in particular but Conservative Members, too—thought that that perhaps was a modest amount—[Interruption.] The NUM said that it would be 7 million tonnes, but some said that even that was on the low side and that it could be more. In Committee we did a quick calculation which showed that with a change of cranes and dockside procedures, it was possible that as much as 10 million or even 12 million tonnes could come in. That gave us cause for concern.
Mr. Terry Patchett: Is it not a fact that the figure quoted by the NUM was in respect of total capacity, with the port at full production?
Dr. Clark: Yes, the NUM's figure of 7 million tonnes was in respect of full production, but some of us felt that the NUM had understated the position. We thought that, in fairness, it could be more than the NUM figure. We feared that it could be as much as 10 million tonnes. We on the Committee tried to do our job diligently, considering what the figure could be and examining the consequences.
Many Opposition Members are from coal mining constituencies. In Committee, we totally sympathised with the effects that could come from the massive importation of coal through the facilities of the port, first if it were to be built and secondly if it were to be used for importing

875
coal in massive quantities. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, as many as 15 pits could be shut if the dock facility were used exclusively for bringing in cheap Colombian, Polish, South African and Australian coal. Those 15 pits, with an average of 1,000 miners per pit, would mean the loss of 15,000 jobs, with a knock-on effect for the local coalfield communities. We appreciate, too —as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, who is no longer in his place—that that energy would be sterilised for ever and would not be available at a future time when coal prices on the world market might be more expensive and we would wish to use indigenous coal.
Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the Committee's concern about the import of large quantities of coal. He said that all the figures given to the Committee were under-estimates of the tonnages that the Committee considered might be brought in through the port. In view of that, and in view of the consequences of the closure of 15 pits, why did he not support the amendment that British Coal wished to make to the Bill?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman asks a legitimate question. We thought that the special report and the conditions that we placed on ABP covered the point better than the British Coal amendment.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee asked in the recommendations for certain assurances from the Government. So far as I know, no such assurances have been given. In view of that, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill should proceed any further?
Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to proceed with my speech a little further, I shall deal with that point. I promise not to ignore his question.
Before the voting, the Committee discussed what would be the consequences of building the dock facility if it were used entirely for coal, and we did not like the consequences that were revealed. But we also had to consider what would be the consequences for trade in general in the north Midlands, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire if there were not more port facilities to allow general cargo trade on the Humber. We came to the conclusion—although it was contested in the vote, and that was when I used my casting vote—that we wanted to ensure that facilities were built so that they could be used for general trade. We also wanted to be sure that there was not a flood of cheap imported foreign coal, with all the horrendous consequences about which we had heard from the petitioners.
It seemed to us far more appropriate to build something so that it could be used for general trade, but to bring to the attention of the Government—here I answer the intervention of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—the danger of the port facility being used exclusively, largely or damagingly for coal, and asking the Government to be aware of the danger. So that the Government would know the size of the danger, we put a condition on ABP—which it later granted us—to report quarterly the amount of coal brought in so that the figures could be in the Library for hon. Members, and be available to the Department of
876
Energy. By that means, hon. Members interested in coal, as well as the Department, would be aware of what was happening on the Humber.
Mr. Lofthouse: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. The report says at paragraph 24:
"The conditions imposed by the Committee are as follows. They were agreed to unanimously."
In bold print at the bottom of the page we read:
"In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry."
Has the hon. Gentleman received an assurance from the Government that the conditions imposed by his Committee will be fulfilled by the Government? If not, does he believe that the Bill should proceed any further?
Dr. Clark: I have not received any assurances from the Government on that point. [Interruption.] I have tried to play this straight. I have not spoken to Ministers on the matter, and I do not intend to do so until after the Third Reading.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Dr. Clark: I cannot give way to everyone at once.
As for conditions, the two referred to in paragraph 24 are conditions of the special report and of ABP reporting on coal imports. They are not conditions on Government, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have included in heavy type the sentence that he quoted.
Mr. Allen McKay: The argument seems to centre on the Committee's findings and the details for which it asked. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there could be a loss of 30,000 or 40,000 jobs and that great damage could be done to Britain's economy. The Minister will shortly reply to the debate. If the Minister does not give the assurances about which we have heard—remembering that we are on Third Reading and that this is our last chance to debate the matter—will the hon. Gentleman join us voting against the Bill and advise his hon. Friends to do the same?
Dr. Clark: I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up he will refer to our special report and will consider the reason behind it, which is to support the domestic coal mining industry. I shall be disappointed if my hon. Friend does not say that the Government will take note of the special report's contents. At this stage, I shall not go so far as to reveal my voting intentions, but I shall share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment if my hon. Friend the Minister does not refer to the report.
Mr. McCartney: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why he acted as he did, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, on the issue of guarantees. Does he agree that the guarantee given by Hitler to Neville Chamberlain had more substance than the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman has been given about miners' jobs?
Dr. Clark: The difference is that at the moment umbrellas are being used to keep the sun away, not the rain. In this case, we seek understandings with our own Government about our own people. We are not debating a guarantee by a foreign Government to protect our nation, so the hon. Gentleman's analogy is not worth pursuing.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I have just stumbled on this debate, but clearly I should have been here earlier. Those of my constituents who produce oil, mutton and

877
wool ought to have been represented on my hon. Friend's Committee to secure a guarantee that those products would not be imported. It seems amazing that we should be seeking to limit coal imports by restricting their passage through a particular port.
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we try to restrict imports by failing to provide dock facilities, we shall destroy all free trade in and out of this country just to protect one commodity. Even though my hon. Friend has been in the Chamber only briefly, he hits the nail on the head. We must provide adequate facilities for imports and exports, but if a part of our economy comes under serious attack or is in danger as a consequence of excessive imports, the Government of the day—whatever their political complexion—must take whatever action is necessary to protect the home industry from dumping. But to fail to construct port facilities in the first place is no way to control imports.
Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that was asked earlier? Why did he not support the amendment that would restrict only imports of steam coal? He could then have got on with promoting general trade, which we also want to do.
Dr. Clark: I did not support that amendment because I felt that the special report was a better way of achieving the desired effect. I have described that report in some detail and I have given way to several interventions. The debate—
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be having great difficulty in answering a direct question. Will you use your good offices to get the Minister off his backside to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be better if the House got on with the debate.
Dr. Clark: The House must not assume that if and when the port is built it will be used exclusively, or even mainly, for coal imports. It will provide jobs and business opportunities in the Humber area, and will have its own knock-on effects in Humberside, north Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. We should not forget that the Bill covers also King's Lynn and Port Talbot, but that aspect is not contentious.
The special report, which was the Committee's idea, and the quarterly reports sought from ABP are intended to alert the Government to the dangers of importing massive amounts of cheap foreign coal and to give them an opportunity to take whatever action is necessary to protect both national and local interests. I am surprised that the special report has been criticised to the extent that it has because it was prepared only to protect and assist the domestic coal industry. Some Opposition Members could be a little more sympathetic to a report that is intended precisely and specifically to draw to the Government's attention the dangers that might arise in many of the constituencies served by Opposition Members. I suggest that the House should think carefully about the Bill. As to the port facility, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not throw out the baby with the bath water.
8.55 pm
Mr. Terry Patchett: It is becoming apparent that there is more to the Bill than meets the eye. At first glance it seems harmless, having the purpose only of providing competition with European ports and creating direct access to the United Kingdom rather than through Rotterdam or Amsterdam. The Bill would also provide jobs on the east coast that are badly needed. All that seems reasonable, until one starts delving further. From the debate so far, it is obvious that there is a sinister move afoot and that the Bill goes much deeper than merely creating a port facility that may handle a small volume of coal imports.
Why have some Conservative Members who support the Bill been to South Africa? Who paid their expenses, and why did they visit South African coal mines?
Mr. Hardy: I take this opportunity to withdraw an implication that I made in a recent debate when I suggested that Associated British Ports was responsible for sending Conservative Members to South Africa. I informed ABP that I unreservedly withdraw any imputation of that kind. However, having done so, I may say that the House is entitled to ask Conservative Members who went to South Africa, who paid their expenses, because none of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that they provide that money from their own resources.
Mr. Patchett: My hon. Friend takes an honourable course of action in withdrawing his earlier comment, and I hope that his request for information will be honoured by Conservative Members. I am happy to give way if any Conservative Member wishes to respond, but I see no movement on the Government Benches.
I would like to know also why the Government have so much enthusiasm for the Bill. Why have there been unofficial whippings? If one is unaware of the answers, one has only to read the special report to find them. It states in paragraph 21:
"The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting United Kingdom energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench MPs, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private Bill committee. There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government."
I pay tribute to the Committee for its honest assessment of the position. That is what has been said time and again in the House about the same old gambit. The Government are presenting part of their energy policy in the guise of a private Bill: we need only observe the payroll vote and, indeed, the Prime Minister herself, going through the Lobby to support it to see that that is so.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: "Payroll vote" is a term that I love to hate, because parliamentary private secretaries are not

879
paid, but does the hon. Gentleman concede that four PPSs voted against the Bill on Second Reading? If so, I trust that he will withdraw what he has said.
Mr. Patchett: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention rather confusing, as I did not think that I had used an unusual term. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will correct me if I have stepped out of line, but I thought that it was a term used quite commonly in the House.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is.
Mr. Patchett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the vast majority of the payroll vote have been through the Lobby to support the Bill. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has picked on that point. If this is education so be it, but it seems to me that those who are supposed to live by the rule of free market forces are encouraging the import of cheap foreign coal because it will spur on people interested in buying our electricity industry.
The Bill's supporters show a callous indifference to both the evil of apartheid and the future of our own coal industry. I have said that jobs will be created at the ports; I believe, however, that for every hundred created a thousand will be lost in the rest of the country—in constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is running at 20 per cent. and is even higher among the young.
The Coal Board is in a dilemma, and I understand the confusion caused by the Government's lack of a coherent energy policy. Despite our high unemployment, according to the Coal Board review a colliery in my area is likely to lose nearly 800 jobs. So dishonest is the board, and so lacking in confidence in its own arguments, that it has used deceitful tactics and threatened workers with the loss of some of their redundancy money—a rather dubious threat, we suspect.
That Barnburgh colliery was supposed to have obtained 2·5 million tonnes of coal from another colliery that had closed—for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I am referring to Cadeby. The confusion resulted from the fact that the Coal Board does not know where it is going.
Those who voted for the Bill—the greedy ones, the "I'm all right Jacks"—are doing long-term harm to the country. While they profit, the Government pay out more and more unemployment benefit, lose income through not receiving tax and face the ever-growing problem of its balance of payments. When they have decimated our own coal industry we will run the risk of a rise in world coal prices when cheap foreign coal has served its purpose.
Already a section of our electricity generating industry panics if a tanker goes aground or an oil well goes out of commission, and world oil prices start to rocket. That is the stupidity of the Government's energy policy. The debate is about energy. This is much more serious than what will happen to one or two ports. The Government have been responsible for a disgraceful misuse of Private Bill procedure. The payroll vote, along with the proximity of the ports to coal-fired power stations which the Government intend to privatise, proves that the Bill is an expression of Government policy and should have been dealt with in Government time.
880
I ask all hon. Members who respect the House to vote to keep the Bill out, on that basis alone, and to let the Government put the subject forward for more open and honest debate, with all hon. Members understanding their true purpose. If we allow the Bill to be passed, we shall damage parliamentary procedures and make a laughing stock of Mr. Speaker's office. Even if some hon. Members are in favour of the Bill, I ask them not to favour deceit.
9.5 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: The infamous Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, if enacted, would strike at the very heart of Britain's coal industry. When it received its Second Reading 11 months ago with a majority of 47—110 were for and 63 against—there were serious recriminations. Who was responsible for allowing this to happen? Was it the fair weather synthetic supporters of the coal industry who had skived off home early at 7.20 pm, or the many uninformed hon. Members who happened to be still around at 8.20 pm when the Division was called, and who drifted into the wrong Lobby? I cannot speak for the former category; they will have to live with their consciences.
Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: Not now.
Let me direct my efforts tonight towards persuading my hon. Friends who, when the coal industry was equally threatened in 1984–85, packed the Conservative Benches in support of the Nottinghamshire miners and their families, to do the same tonight.
The Nottinghamshire coalfield is particularly threatened by proposals to build coal handling cargo facilities on the Humber estuary which will be capable of handling 10 million tonnes of imported coal. An increase in the amount of artificially cheap coal imported to the British market will imperil a significant amount of investment already made by British Coal, leading to further colliery closures. Up to 80 per cent. of Nottinghamshire's deep-mined coal is burned in power stations in the Trent valley. The loss of that market, even in the short term, will lead to the closures of several pits in the county.
Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the threat to jobs in his constituency and others. Will he make it clear to the Nottinghamshire miners that it is his own party that is to bring about those job losses by voting for the Bill?
Mr. Stewart: I am not the conscience of my brothers.
It is estimated that up to 11 collieries in Nottinghamshire could be at risk, directly or indirectly, as a result of large-scale coal imports. Today the coal industry makes a major contribution to Nottinghamshire's economy. As well as being the largest industrial employer, paying wages in excess of £300 million in 1988, the industry and its employees generate further employment as consumers of services and manufactured goods. Putting it another way, for every job in the mining industry it supports up to two jobs in other sectors.
Although regarded as one of the most prosperous in the country, the Nottinghamshire coalfield has lost more than 13,000 jobs since 1984 in a drive towards greater productivity and competitiveness. Having completed this painful exercise in human terms and the latest financial

881
figures showing an operating profit of £65 million, it would be unthinkable to put at risk a further 11,000 jobs, as would happen if this ports Bill were approved.
Approaching half of British Coal sales to power stations are within about 60 miles of the Humber ports and the central coal fields send over 80 per cent. of their output to power stations with the lowest transport costs from the Humber—West Burton, Cottam, Thorpe Marsh and High Marnham. Last year these stations took over 60 million tonnes of British coal and over 11 million tonnes from Nottinghamshire. This represents 45 per cent. of the total supplied to those stations. Moreover, 40 per cent. of the total sales of the Nottinghamshire area went to those four stations, which clearly shows that the dependence of Nottinghamshire on this market can hardly be exaggerated.
The Union of Democratic Mineworkers, in its submission to the Committee, emphasised that its opposition to the proposed facilities in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill does not arise from a wish to prevent legitimate competition; it arises from a desire to allow the industry's present policy of restructuring to be brought to a successful conclusion without short-term disruption of the markets by imports sold at prices unlikely to he sustainable in the medium and long term. Failure by my hon. Friends to recognise this would prejudice economic fuel supplies to the privatised electricity industry in the longer term.
By comparison the United Kingdom enjoys lower domestic and industrial tariffs for its electricity supply than our major competitors. In fact, at 3·8p per kilowatt they are 50 per cent. lower than those of Japan, Germany and the United States. Our price is in keeping with the prices of the major coal-exporting countries, such as Australia and Poland. How can the international coal producers capture a market share in the United Kingdom other than by loss leader prices, which raises a fundamental question—do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners?
Mr. Barron: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to us, since we are a hit puzzled about his defence of the coal mining industry, why he did not join us in the Lobby against the Electricity Bill which privatises the electricity industry and will kill the Nottinghamshire coalfield along with others?
Mr. Stewart: We are talking tonight about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill; we are not talking about the privatisation of the electricity industry.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Before my hon. Friend addresses himself to that point, will he address himself to why, when this Bill was being read a Second time, the Opposition attendance was so dismal? Far from complaining today, if they had attended on that occasion instead of sloping off home, the Bill would never have proceeded to a Third Reading. He should accept no strictures from the Opposition when his position on this matter has always been consistent.
Mr. Stewart: Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am not giving way. There are many people wishing to speak.
I accept what my hon. Friend has said and agree with him entirely.
Mr. Redmond: Give way.
Mr. Stewart: I am not giving way any more.
Do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners or do we support British coal and our miners, who have served the electricity industry and the customer well? Over the past four years they have reduced their prices to the CEGB in real terms by £650 million a year. In the current year there has been no price increase at all despite the high rate of inflation. Should all this be squandered for the illusory benefits of foreign coal?
Compared with a year ago, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was introduced, there are clear signs that overseas coal producers are determined to increase their prices to ensure the future viability of their operations. Low heavy fuel oil prices, which had a significant bearing on the coal price freeze agreed with the CEGB last November, have sinced moved upwards by over 50 per cent. Also, sterling has shown a downward trend against the dollar, in which international coal is traded, despite heavy Government intervention which amounts to a further £7 a tonne on imported coal. This shows beyond any doubt why the new power generating companies cannot rely on spot or short-term international coal contracts.
The ESI must give both domestic and industrial users some price guarantee indication and can do so only if raw materials are predictable at cost. Only British coal can offer this. Its unique selling point, which cannot be paralleled by any importer, is that it can offer long-term contracts, up to 10 years if need be, with prices based on the retail price index for secured, established coal supplies. It now has a proven record of quality of supply and performance, backed by the example set by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers offering real stability of supply.
In their evidence to the Committee the port developers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that they are not basing their project on handling any significant tonnage of coal. Frankly, I do not believe them. However, that is what they have said. If that is the case and this Bill receives a Third Reading, they cannot claim that the project will be imperilled if a new clause is moved in another place excluding them from handling coal for the first three years or so after the port has been completed in 1992. This will eliminate the severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the Government encourage an early free-for-all on imports.
My hon. Friends should remember that British Coal already—
Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you give us some guidance? Do you think it right that the hon. Member who gave the casting vote to put this Bill through to the Third Reading should be discussing with the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not privy to what goes on outside this Chamber.
Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman, having made several statements, now tell the House that he is willing to discuss the Third Reading with the people who are seeking to promote this Bill. Is that correct?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate. As I say, what happens outside the Chamber is not a matter for me. I have a big enough job controlling what happens in the Chamber.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friends should remember that British Coal already sells the equivalent of 25 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB at prices—[Interruption.]
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is supposed to be the impartial Chairman of the Committee. Is it right for him to be consistently holding discussions with the sponsors of the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite customary for Ministers and others to seek advice outside the Chamber, but I am sure that all hon. Members will respond at all times to the mood of the House.
Mr. Stewart rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I get the impression that this matter is resolving itself.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) became Chairman of the Committee, the House was given a categorical assurance by him that he had no connection whatsoever with the sponsors. We accepted that assurance from him as an hon. Gentleman. Only minutes later, however, we found that that was not the case. There should be a ruling about his conduct. He has broken the categorical assurance that he gave to us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that we can get on with it.
Mr. Stewart: British Coal already sells 25 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB at world prices, so no further price advantage would accrue until the 26 million tonnes of imported coal arrive. While seeking that advantage, the cost in pit closures, job losses and destroyed coalfield communities would be tenfold. For me, the risks to my constituents, 30 per cent. of whom work directly for the coal industry, are too great. Therefore I beg my hon. Friends to listen to the argument and to stand full square behind Nottingham miners and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
9.21 pm
Mr. John Prescott: I ought to register, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the House, the fact that we do not have even the Chairman of the Committee—
Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yet again we are debating the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It has been debated on many previous occasions. About 25 minutes of the debate have been taken up by hon. Members who represent coalfield community areas. That is all the time that they have had to participate in the debate. The Chairman of the Committee that considered the Bill spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain how much effort he had put into considering the Bill over many weeks. Hon. Members with constituencies in the north-west have spoken in the debate. There are no coal mines in their area. An hon. Member with a Humberside constituency is
884
promoting the Bill. Now the Opposition Front Bench spokesman is called. Is this debate to be concluded at 10 o'clock? If that is so, hon. Members from coal mining areas will not have had an opportunity to participate in the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I well understand that the hon. Gentleman, and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that, when spokesmen from the Front Benches rise, it is customary for them to be called. That is why I called the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
Mr. Prescott: As the Chairman of the Committee has sought advice or instructions from the sponsors of the Bill, I think that at least he should have listened to what hon. Members have had to say in the debate, particularly as he has played such an important role in having the casting vote. We have heard that his casting vote was used to decide all the matters that were in front of the Committee. However, you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not in breach of the procedures of the House.
One appreciates that the sponsor of the Bill—in this case the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—would naturally seek advice from the sponsors, but it is a bit much for that role to be taken on by the Chairman of the Committee, whose own independence has been constantly questioned by the Opposition. I can only hope that he will return to the Chamber after discussing with the promoters of the Bill the information that he wants to impart to the House. We should welcome the Chairman back to the Chamber.
The real issue, however, is not what the Chairman of the Committee may have to tell us. The real issue is the Government's view of the matter. That is what we have asked for in every debate on the Bill at each stage. Now we are at Third Reading. Certain recommendations have been made by the Committee. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has made it absolutely clear that there is no argument between the NUM and the UDM, or between him and Opposition Members, as will be shown in the Division Lobby. I do not know what has motivated him to embark upon such a course. However, the point that concerns me is why the Government do not note that all those hon. Members who represent mining constituencies are expressing the same grave fears and doubts about the consequences of the Bill.
If anyone doubts that, one can point to the fact that the Committee published a special report because it was extremely concerned about the consequences of the Bill. Cheap coal and the consequences for the coal industry of privatisation are significant matters that lie at the heart of the debate. They are matters of national interest and concern. Those who ought to speak for the national interest are the Government.
I have read the reports of the debates that have taken place at the various stages of the Bill, including the Government's position at each stage. I draw that to the attention of the House, bearing in mind that the Committee's report calls on the Government to take whatever steps are necessary in the overall national interest to protect our indigenous coal mining industry. Perhaps the industry and the Government are doing that, but they have not yet convinced me.

885
I should be glad if the Minister for Roads and Traffic would say whether he intends to give the Government's point of view. I look with interest at the man who is never afraid to get up to lecture us about all sorts of things. Is it the Minister's intention to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate, in view of the Committee's special report? I will gladly give way to him—The Minister obviously does not intend to get up. He has obviously got his seat belt on for this ride.
I remind the Minister what other Ministers have said at various stages. I presume that he has read the report of the debates. Obviously he is the fall guy; he has been sent here to say nothing in this debate.
The Minister of State at that time told the House:
"It is conventional on a private Bill for the Government to take a neutral stance, but in doing so to advise the House that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading. This does not imply that the Government support the Bill. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified."—[Official Report, 22 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 122.]
That is the view of various Governments on all private Bills.
The Government were also asked to state their position when the House was considering whether the Bill could be transferred from one Session to another—a procedure that is now all too common. The Minister of State said:
"The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the Government's views on the carry-over motion. The Government believe that the motion should be supported. That will provide the opportunity for this important Bill to continue to be discussed."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 257.]
That was the extent of the Minister's contribution.
The Bill has been in Committee and we have before us certain recommendations, on which we are entitled to ask for the Government's view. If one is led to believe that the Government were indifferent and did not want to be identified with the Bill, a quick look at the voting record will soon make it clear that not only did ordinary Government Back Benchers vote, but Cabinet Ministers were involved, with 26 members of the Cabinet voting. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who is known to operate in the Government's interest, is hardly the sort of fellow who is likely to vote against the Government's interest. He spends all his time defending it.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is making great play about which Members on the Government side voted for or against the Second Reading of these Bills. I have only the Hansard of Thursday 23 June. Among the Members voting against the Bill were 11 or 12 Conservatives, but I do not see the hon. Gentleman's name in either Division list on that day. In view of the synthetic indignation that he is generating now, I wonder if he voted against the Second Reading of any of the Bills.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman said that he had not read the whole record. If he looks at the record, he will find that I voted on them all, with the exception of that one. I can give the reasons why I did not vote on that occasion, if the hon. Gentleman wants them, but I do not think we need go into them.
The real point is, what is the position of the Government? We are talking about the Secretary of State for Employment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Security. One could argue that each of those
886
Departments, apart from the Northern Ireland Office, will be directly affected by the consequences of the Bill. The Department of Social Security will be affected by the payment of benefit to those who become unemployed because of the Bill, and the Treasury may be concerned with the balance of payments deficit. Perhaps those Ministers took the view that all they were doing was enabling the debate to take place; perhaps they just happened to be about that evening and voted for the Bill. We will accept that argument, if that is the case.
What will be the position tonight? What is the Government's position on the Bill, since the Committee was unanimous in its recommendations? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) whether he had received any assurances from the Government. He was at pains to make it clear that he had had no discussions with the Government. I am glad that he was not asked about discussions with Associated British Ports. If we leave that aside, the Government have not approached him.
I want to ask only one question, because many hon. Members still want to speak. What is the Government's position on an energy policy, a coal policy, jobs and employment, the balance of payments and social security benefits? All those matters are directly involved. Is the Minister prepared to get up and tell us what the Government's position is? Has he been briefed on the Government's position, or will he be voting tonight on a Bill on which he does not have a view? Has he been told to vote in a certain way? Is that the kind of order that Ministers get from on high?
I shall give the Minister another chance. Will he now get up and give us an indication of the Government's view on the matter—or, more so, on the recommendations of the Select Committee? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.—He does not wish to intervene. It is clear that the Government—
Mr. Graham Allen: Clearly the Minister does not intend to get to his feet because it is all part of a big fix. It is the height of hypocrisy. Some Nottingham Tory Members will vote with Labour tonight against the Bill, yet next week they will vote against the Nottinghamshire mining industry by voting for privatisation, by supporting a cut in the CEGB coal target and by voting for West Burton B not to go ahead. Those Tory Members are being allowed a night off tonight—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.
Mr. Allen—when some other Back Benchers on the Conservative side—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Prescott: It is clear from what my hon. Friend has said that views on the matter are strongly held. They will be even stronger if the Minister refuses to intervene. It seems that the Government do not intend to give any opinion about the Bill, despite all the recommendations of the Private Bill Committee and despite the statements made by the Chairman and members of the Committee. We are witnessing a shabby use of Parliament in the private Bill procedures. More and more, the Department of Transport uses the private Bill procedure to avoid accountability. It has been argued that this is the place

887
where the Government will be held to account, but here we have a Government entirely silent on a major issue that will affect thousands of miners, that will close pits, that will have a massive effect on our balance of payments, and that will affect the economy, but there is not one word from the Government.
The country will register precisely what is happening. The Government are working behind the scenes, sending in their troops to secure victory for this Bill. The country will register disgust at these private procedures and at the cowardice of the Minister, who could not answer our case.
Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears from the Minister's inaction of the past few seconds that he is refusing to give the House an interpretation of the Committee's report on this Bill. You will be well aware of that report. It said that the procedure was
"stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee."
Now the Minister appears to be refusing to tell us the Government's opinion of the report. Is that in order? Surely, before Third Reading, the House should know the Government's attitude to the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Whether a Minister rises is not a matter for me.
Several Hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call an hon. Member who served on the Committee. Mr. Pat Wall.
9.37 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: On the face of it, this is an unexceptionable Bill promoted by Associated British Ports, which runs 21 docks, whose holding company made £38 million profit in 1987—more than half of it from its docks operation—and which requested permission to build a deep water jetty that could take Panamax boats of up to 80,000 tonnes and Cape-sized boats of up to 120,000 tonnes, in competition with the ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp, and possibly provide a number of jobs on Humberside and help to develop the Humber area. However, this supposedly unexceptionable Bill spent five and a half months in Committee, with sittings held three days a week, morning and afternoon, except during parliamentary recesses—the longest period in Committee of any Private Bill for many years.
As my hon. Friends have said, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister were seen marching into the Lobbies to cast their votes on Second Reading. That is unusual for a private Bill. Having attended every sitting of the Committee, apart from the first, and having been responsible in part for the report, which was unanimous, I observe that the Committee reached its decision only on the casting vote of the Chairman, that it rejected amendments only on the Chairman's casting vote, and that the Bill is controversial and deeply political.
The Bill is inextricably concerned with major political, social and economic issues of the deepest regional and national impact. It has to do with the massive importation of foreign coal and the effect that that would have on the already horrendous balance of trade figures. It deals with possible sanctions busting in connection with importing
888
South African coal, and possibly with importing coal from the semi-slave coalfield of Colombia. It is concerned with the future of British Coal as a viable national organisation and with the future of at least 15,000 miner's jobs in some of the most productive pits in Britain. The Bill concerns those miners' futures and those of their families, and the knock-on effect on other jobs in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
The Bill is about the future of the electricity generating industry—about supplies of steam coal, which is the basic fuel for the generating industry, and will be for the privatised generating industry if the legislation goes through. It means putting the basic raw material of the industry in the hands of foreign suppliers in half the major coal-burning power stations in Britain. It means enormous costs in redundancy payments, unemployment benefits, social security payments and the considerable social costs that to with a further massive wave of redundancies in areas already suffering large-scale unemployment and social deprivation.
Mr. Lofthouse: Did the Committee have all this in mind when it framed paragraph 22 of its special report, which says:
"Before the Committee came to make a formal decision on, first, the amendment proposed by the British Coal Corporation, and, secondly, the Preamble itself, we agreed that if the Bill were allowed to proceed, this would be subject to conditions set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 below."
As far as I am aware, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), has not given us any assurance that those conditions will be fulfilled. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Committee said that the Bill should go through only if those conditions were agreed?
Mr. Wall: I shall come to that point, which will take up much of what I have to say.
I was speaking of the deeply political effects of the Bill. It will lower the purchasing powers of those areas—Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire—affected by the redundancies and it will deeply affect the work that local authorities have done in trying to counter the effects of the redundancies which have already hit mining communities so severely in the post-war period. It would also have a serious affect on the already overcrowded road system and consequential effects on the environment if the coal is carried from Immingham to the Aire and Trent valley power stations by a vast fleet of lorries.
All these issues were raised and discussed in Committee. The Bill makes political decisions, and that is not the role of Members of the House under the private Bill procedure. For three of the four of us, this was our first private Bill. We are all Back Benchers, and three of us were Members of less than two years' standing.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Wall: No, I will not.
We do not say that in any modesty. All three of us feel that we have the ability to proceed on the Bill, but we did not have the experience of private Bill procedure, and are still learning the general procedure of the House. This private Bill was concerned also with issues of deep and national significance.
On Second Reading, the promoter made no case for the Bill whatever. No case has ever been made out for the Bill in the House. Only in the 26 sittings of the Committee were

889
these issues debated. However, because of the Chairman's casting vote, there is no Report stage, with the result that the House has no opportunity to debate amendments, even the important ones suggested by British Coal and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which would have placed a restriction on the import of coal for three years after the passing of that Bill. I feel sorry for the Chairman.
Mr. McCartney: As a member of the Committee who served with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman a question? When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the sponsors of the Bill a minute ago, did he say, "I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to you"?
Mr. Wall: What is wrong with this Bill is that the Chairman of the Committee was placed in an impossible position. When we debated private Bill procedure in the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in a shrewd intervention, said that hon. Members are supposed to sit on a private Bill Committee to exercise independent and fair judgment. He did not use exactly those words, but that was what he meant. Normally, private Bills concern planning decisions which can be controversial. If they involve proposals to build a railway through Kent or a road through the Shipley constituency next to mine, or to build a tunnel under certain areas, they are controversial, but not politically controversial in the way that the future of the coal industry or the electricity generating industry in Britain is controversial.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.
Mr. Wall: I shall not give way.
Such Bills are not controversial in the way that this Bill affects social services and local communities. The Chairman of the Committee has had to try to justify what happened to the Bill in Committee because the promoter of the Bill has not had the guts to explain the Bill to the House; nor has the Minister been prepared to explain the issues to the House.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why Ministers might be scared to come to the Dispatch Box is that the Conservative Members enjoy wrapping themselves in the Union Jack and calling themselves the party of patriotism? While they stand at the front door defending this country, they are kicking the back door open with their heels and allowing our competitors to ransack our industries.
Mr. Wall: I wish to deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. Eadie: I want to raise an extremely important point with my hon. Friend because he was present when a whole series of points of order were raised about amendments which were not selected. The occupant of the Chair promised me that the special report would be debated in the House and would be perfectly in order. This is our only opportunity to find out about the special report while my hon. Friend is making his speech. Will he explain to the House why the special report talks about energy policy, the Government being concerned and the free market when the Committee must have been well aware that the
890
privatisation of the electricity supply industry was passing through the House and one of the Government's main points was that there would be a free market in the coal industry? Will he explain to the House how the Committee reached that decision?
Mr. Wall: That is the crux of the debate and the reason why the report was produced. A reasonable and modest amendment was proposed by British Coal, calling for a time limit, or a free period, of three years in which coal could not be imported in excess of current figures into the Humber ports, given the exceptionally and unusually low stock prices for steam coal on the world market, and to allow the modernisation programme, which in the past was largely financed by Government money, to go ahead to allow steam coal to be produced more competitively and to allow British Coal to plan ahead. No private or state-owned coal industry can possibly plan ahead and invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the Selby coalfield and other new coalfields on the basis of a fanciful and theoretical market in the future.
For those reasons, we moved our simple, modest amendment, which was not accepted by the Committee. We then made a statement. The fact that we had to make a statement shows that this is not a normal—
Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) does not want to give way, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) should not persist.
Mr. Wall: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. He came in late—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Committee sat for five and a half months. We took the trouble to bring our report to the House and it is worth discussing. We said:
"The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting UK energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to he taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench M Ps, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private bill committee.
There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government."
Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that he should, perhaps, give way to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who may have something to tell us? In October 1988, according the Register of Members' Interests, he paid a visit to South Africa financed by the South African Government. We should know what has been going on in the background.
Hon. Members: Come on, Bellingham.
Mr. Wall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not a vindictive or suspicious person, but the Bill is being considered by the House after three Conservative

891
Members have visited coal interests in South Africa. We should know who paid for those trips, what the connections were and what happened on the trips.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wall: I am not giving way. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wall: I want to draw a contrast now. The Bill concerns the Humber ports. One of the interesting things about the Bill is that Conservative Members have been pushing the idea that Associated British Ports is wonderful. We have been told that it is a company whose total tonnage has risen since it was privatised from 77 million tonnes in 1972 to 90 million tonnes in 1987, with profits of £28 million. The total investment in new ports by the company is £80 million. Yet we are told that scheme ports are not viable, cannot operate, cannot attract investment and are not successful. On the one hand, we are told that Associated British Ports is a company that really needs and can really develop Immingham jetty; on the other hand we are told that we must abolish the dock labour scheme because scheme ports cannot provide such work. That argument is nonsense.
Mr. Bellingham rose—
Mr. Wall: The Prime Minister—
Mr. Bellingham: I seek your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) has given way on several occasions to his hon. Friends, but not to any Conservative Member, including myself. I wish to tell him that my support for the Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Bellingham rose—
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) wants to tell the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) something, he must not do it through me.
Mr. Bellingham: My support for the Bill has nothing whatever to do with a trip that I made to South Africa —[Interruption.]—but everything to do with that part of the Bill which relates to King's Lynn and to the £4 million that will be spent there to bring jobs to my constituency.
Mr. Wall: Although a scheme port is proposing a £30·5 million investment in the Humber jetty, when the Government are arguing for the abolition of the dock labour scheme they tell us that there is no investment in scheme ports. Although the total amount of investment proposed over three years around Immingham on the river Humber is about £370 million, the Government say that investment cannot be attracted to scheme ports. That is what they say when they want to reduce dockers to the kind of conditions experienced by my grandfather in Manchester, and that is why I am political and here in the House.
The secret of these ports is their geographical position and it is that which affects this decision about bringing coal into the river Humber, which will then be used to make
892
bigger profits for the privatised electricity industry. I quote yet again from the Committee's report, because it is not first a question of jobs. The Committee also decided
"that if the petitioners' assessment of the amount of coal likely to be imported through Immingham proves correct, then the consequences for the British coal industry could be, to use the word employed by Counsel for the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 'horrendous'. Those consequences might include the closure of as many as 15 collieries, the loss of 15,000 jobs, the permanent sterilization of energy resources, and knock on effects on local communities across Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. The Committee is aware of the dangers of allowing the import of coal on this scale, and is very sympathetic to the petitioners in the case they have made concerning this."
We must also consider the social costs of the proposals. The evidence given to the Committee by Dr. Benn Fine, reader in economics at Birkbeck college, stated:
"According to our figures, the economic and social costs of pit closures will be made up of three components. First, lump sum redundancy payments will be of the order of between £191 and £360 million, depending upon the extent and consequences"—
Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I cannot accept the closure.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. I know that a heavy task is placed upon you in protecting the rights of Back Benchers and I want to facilitate that difficult task. I know also that you will be sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) because he attempted to move the Third Reading as soon as the Division on the previous business was completed. He was called at 7.29 pm. There were points of order for more than half an hour and all those points of order were ruled out of order by Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it was quite clear that all those points of order were entirely bogus—[Interruption.] The first speech from the Opposition, from the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), lasted over half an hour. It is clear that this is not an attempt to debate the issues, but to waste time.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would want the House to move to a decision on these important matters. Therefore, can you give me some intimation about when the Bill might be brought back to the House, because as we saw clearly in the vote on Second Reading, a large majority of hon. Members want freedom of trade—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide when the Bill is to be debated again.
Mr. Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on an aspect of the matter. We have not had a full three-hour debate, as points of order lasted until about 10 minutes to 8. We have had a substantial debate that has lasted over two hours, but we have not heard a single word in support of the Bill, either from its promoter or from any other hon. Member, apart from one reference to its minor King's Lynn content. If the House is further to consider this wretched Bill, I hope that Conservative Members who support it—whether or not they have been to South Africa as guests of the South African coal industry—

893
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 25 May.

Community Charges
10 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) clearly said in your hearing and in the hearing of other hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the Bill, was in the pockets of the sponsors of the Bill. That was a clear allegation of impropriety and dishonesty against my hon. Friend. You should ask the hon. Member for Makerfield to withdraw that quite disgraceful slur.
Mr. Speaker: I did not judge that remark to be unparliamentary. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) was present, and he should have challenged it at the time.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 11 May and again on 23 June, the Second Reading debate lasted for three hours and 34 minutes. We have had two hours and 31 minutes of the debate on Third Reading of a Bill that has no amendments. I seek your guidance on how much longer we might have to debate the Bill. Last night, in just over an hour we had three Third Readings, and this debate has now been going on for as long as a Second Reading debate.
Mr. Speaker: When the Chairman of Ways and Means puts the Bill on the Order Paper we shall know how much longer it will take. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides wish to participate in the debate.
Mr. Alan Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for extending the debate tonight, but I ask that, in the next debate, consideration be given to hon. Members representing coalfield areas. So far in the debate, which has lasted for two hours, less than 25 minutes has been given to hon. Members from such areas.
Mr. Speaker: As always, careful consideration will be given to hon. Members with specific interests.
There are six prayers before the House.
10.2 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: This time, I think that we will need more than six prayers. Perhaps the Minister will join me in one in due course.
I beg to move the first motion on the Order Paper,
That the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 438), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
As you have stated, Mr. Speaker, we are also to discuss the next five motions:
That the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunals Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 439), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunals (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 440), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.

895
That the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 441), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 442), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 443), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
Of the six prayers, the most important is the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, No. 438, and that is the one to which we will probably direct most of our comments in the relatively short debate tonight.
Not for the first time, late at night, the Government are trying to slip through important regulations to avoid getting the matter into the media and drawing attention to something that they know is a deeply unpopular tax that will be enforced by regulations that will be equally unpopular. The regulations contain powers and enforcement orders, and many people will be surprised to know their extent. The Local Government Finance 1988—the poll tax and national non-domestic rate—contains no fewer than 736 matters that are left to regulation, determination and order.
Once again, the Government propose to legislate by regulation, order and simple determination of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a centralising and authoritarian Government who choose to act in that manner. I cannot think of any previous Government who included no fewer than 736 matters in a Bill. The Secretary of State for the Environment will have enormous powers. Not for the first time, the Secretary of State has introduced a Bill in which he gives himself powers to do what he likes. That is what he has done in respect of the poll tax and what he continues to do in a number of other Bills before the House.
It is argued that in some way the poll tax will be an easier tax. It is claimed that it will be less bureaucratic, simpler to administer and easier to understand. It is said that it will carry the public with it because, unlike the rates, everyone will understand what the poll tax involves.
It is worth bearing in mind that there is a lot more to administer in the poll tax. The cost of administration will be much higher than the cost of administering the rates. Regulation 23(7) deals with joint and several liability. It contains a sentence which has more than 139 words with eight cross-references to other regulations, which contain another 30 cross-references. We are told that that is designed to make things simpler. It will not make them simpler; it will make them considerably more complex—[Interruption.]
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How much longer are you going to allow 15 separate conversations to take place at the same time? This is a Tory tax, but there is no excuse for Tory Members trying to drown what my hon. Friend is saying.
Mr. Soley: Tory Members are trying to kid the electorate that somehow the poll tax is simpler. I will quote from the regulation which deals with joint and several liability. It states:
896
"Regulations 20(5)(b) and 21(8)(b) apply as if the reference to the chargeable person includes, insofar as concerns the difference between the joint and several liability under regulation 22(1) or (2) of the spouse or manager in respect of the appropriate amount or recalculated amount referred to in those provisions and the amount he has paid in respect of the estimated amount so referred to, a reference to the spouse or manager, and as if the reference to regulation 20(8) were a reference to that provision as applied by paragraph (9) below; and accordingly any requirement which may be made by the chargeable person under regulation 20(5) or 21(9) for a calculation of the appropriate amount or for a recalculation of the estimated amount (as the case may be) may also be made by the spouse or manager."
That is supposed to clarify the matter for people who are living together as man and wife. What nonsense. Most people will not understand it.
This part of the regulations came into effect yesterday. The Government postponed the implementation of regulations 4 and 5 which give community charge registration officers power to demand information, until 22 May. They did that, they said, to avoid the local elections and because they said that they wanted to enable their canvass to begin after the Government's so-called publicity campaign—or more accurately, propaganda campaign—had taken effect.
Of course, there were no elections in most Association of Metropolitan Authorities areas. Most of the regulations could have taken effect already in some of the areas, but they did not. The purpose of the regulations is to enable community charge regulation officers to address a form to the occupier and require any occupier to supply information in respect of other occupiers, it penalises any occupier for not providing that information.
Mr. Dave Nellist: I do not want to anticipate a point that my hon. Friend may be about to make, but, in his experience, as in mine, is it not unusual that we should be debating regulations the day after they came into force? The Government cannot even organise their timetable so that the House, which is supposed to debate such matters, can do so before the regulations come into operation.
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend makes the point that I have made on a number of occasions. The Government not only take incredible centralising authoritarian powers to themselves in a wide-ranging way, as they have done here, but they also slip measures through late at night in the way that he has described by bringing them into effect before the House has debated them.
Regulation 6 deals with information from public bodies.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between an occupier having a duty to fill in the electoral registration form in respect of other people in his House and having a duty to fill in the community charge form in respect of other people?
Mr. Soley: Yes, I can. One gives something and the other takes something away. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the importance of electoral registration as opposed to the poll tax, which is an unfair tax imposed on people in a way that will, in many cases, push them into poverty and is unacceptable. I would be more inclined to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he had lived up to the promise that he gave the Committee which considered the Local Government Finance Bill, on which I too was a member, to meet the homeless people with me tonight. He

897
refused and, instead, went off for dinner. Now, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that he wants to intervene. All of a sudden he wants to be heard. But he did not want to hear the people whom I was going to take him to hear. There is a lesson there for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Soley: When the hon. Gentleman promises to meet people and listen to them and then breaks that promise, he cannot assume that he will be listened to any more than the people to whom he has refused to listen. For that reason, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement to the House that he knows to be untrue and then to refuse to allow the hon. Member to respond to it?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that no hon. Member makes any statement to the House that he knows to be untrue. We are all hon. Members here.
Mr. Soley: I know it to be true.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Soley: Those who do not think that it is true can read the Official Report.
Sir Hugh Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a long-established practice in the House where one hon. Member refers to another to allow that other hon. Member to give an explanation?
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly our tradition.
Mr. Soley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) heard what I said. I told the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that if he had listened in the way that he said he would, he would be entitled to be listened to. It is precisely because he will not listen to others that I am telling him that he cannot assume that he will be given the respect that he refuses to give to others. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should understand. It is quite good training for people to understand that and behave properly.
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that this is a prayer, not a sermon?
Mr. Speaker: Before we proced, let me say that we should all listen to one another's arguments in the House.
Mr. Soley: The Minister is right.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Soley: He reminds me—
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us listen to one another's arguments.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear you say that it is the tradition of the House that if an hon. Member accuses another hon. Member of something, the first hon. Member gives way?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly did say that. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened and it seems that he did not like the reply that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave him.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) broke an undertaking. That is a serious matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith say that the hon. Member for Pembroke was not listening. I am saying to hon. Members in all parts of the House that we should all listen.
Mr. Soley: It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. and the hon. Member for Pembroke should do something about it. As I was saying—
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Soley: As I was saying to the Minister on the issue of prayers and sermons, the poll tax is a lovely example of the way in which Tory Members pray on their knees on Sundays and on their neighbours for the rest of the week. That is what the poll tax is all about.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Soley: No, I will not give way.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hammersmith has impugned my integrity. He said that I broke a promise, and he now refuses to give way so that I may make it clear that that is not the case. This morning I telephoned his research assistant and explained that because there was a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock and because I was engaged on the previous business of the House, tonight was, not convenient, and I said that we must arrange another night when I could take part in the visit.
Mr. Speaker: If we can get on with the debate, I might be able to call the hon. Member for Pembroke so that he can make those points at greater length.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I do not want to intrude, as the phrase has it, on private grief, or to raise instances from last April, you will have heard the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) explain—I appreciate that it is not your responsibility, Mr. Speaker—that he was on a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock. From 7 until 10 o'clock we were engaged on private business. It is interesting to hear that the Tory party puts on a three-line Whip—[Interruption.]—for private business.
Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about Whips.
Mr. Soley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) points out, the hon. Member for Pembroke has given the game away. The Conservatives put on a three-line Whip for private business. But even that does not work, because the agreement with the hon. Gentleman was simple. It was that I would have him back here for the 10 o'clock Division, but he still would not come.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you to use your influence to ensure that we get back to the debate, rather than consider the outside activities of hon. Members, because some of us actually want to talk about the community charge?
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a prayer —in fact six prayers—that the debate continues for one and a half hours and that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we may now proceed in good order.
Mr. Soley: I am satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke has got the message.
The exemptions order deals with information from public bodies. The measure permits the Secretary of State to declare some information off limits to community charge registration officers. The Secretary of State has used his discretion nervously in this regulation. Names and addresses held by local authorities are off limits only if they are held for police or employment purposes. That means that if an authority has names and addresses held for sensitive purposes—child abuse or something of that nature—those names and addresses, but not the reasons for holding them, must be passed to CCROs on request.
Social services directors have criticised that—I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raising this issue in a late night debate—because it is seen as a breach of trust and a possible deterrent to those seeking help from, or volunteering information to, social services.
Confusion has also arisen over lists of names and addresses for education purposes. The Department of Education and Science has ruled that names and addresses of parents held by schools are not available to CCROs but that if the same names and addresses are held by local education authorities for the same purposes, CCROs must be given them on request. The upshot is that local authority employees and parents of schoolchildren will have greater rights of privacy from the CCRO than the people with whom social service departments have to deal in difficult circumstances in respect of child abuse, wife battering, and many other sensitive issues. Such information will not enjoy the same degree of protection.
Under regulation 17, people may have to pay a full year's charge in less than 10 instalments. Ministers say that in almost all cases people will be able to pay in 10 instalments, but that is not so. If the percentage payable falls below a certain level, the chargeable person will have to pay larger instalments or the full sum. That will hit the poor, despite the Government's assurance that it will not do so.
Regulation 23(7) deals with the famous "joint and several liability", which the Government tried to hide from public knowledge in distributing a leaflet that does not make it clear that one will be liable for the poll tax of one's spouse in certain circumstances. Right hon. and hon. Members know about that liability, but the public may not do so. It is important that they are given genuine information. When I forced the Government to withdraw the leaflet "Tenants' Choice" because it was misleading, they did so quietly and unannounced. If the Government know, as they surely must, that the community charge leaflet does not present good factual information that will help the public to understand the poll tax, then they should
900
do the same again. The Government must appreciate that that leaflet can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who are trying to understand the complexities of the poll tax.
Part IV deals with enforcement and sets out the full panoply of the enforcement powers available to local authorites. In outline, having obtained a liability order from magistrates, a local authority can demand information from a debtor, make an attachment of earnings order, apply for a distress warrant or the sale of goods, and in certain circumstances apply for attachment of benefits and even imprisonment. We are debating regulations that will result in people who are unable to pay the poll tax being fined, and if they are unable to pay that fine, being sent to prison. We are considering the possibility that poll tax debtors will go to prison.
Conservative Members have perhaps deliberately hidden from the public the fact that if one is imprisoned for a criminal offence such as murder, one does not have to pay the poll tax. But if one is imprisoned because of one's inability to pay the poll tax, one is still liable to pay it even while in prison. The very people who cannot afford to pay the poll tax, and who are imprisoned as a consequence, are still expected to continue paying it while in gaol. One is better off committing a serious crime and being imprisoned for that than being sent to gaol for non-payment of the poll tax. Surely no one believes that that is desirable or necessary.
Other regulations deal with attachment of earnings orders, distress orders, and other provisions. Unfortunately, the debate is limited. It should have been much wider, so that right hon. and hon. Members could discuss the issues in depth. It is important to understand that when poll tax collectors use a device such as a distress warrant, for example, they will have extreme difficulty in identifying the ownership of goods.
Take the example of the young person of 18 or 19 who has just become liable for poll tax and who does not pay it. If a distress warrant is levied against him and an order for seizure of goods is made, that young man may say, "That is not my property. It belongs to my sister or brother." If Conservative Members are naive enough to believe such things do not happen, they should talk to fines supervision officers, for that problem is one that they frequently encounter. The Minister, who I believe is a magistrate, will know that that is right. We are prepared, however, to slip the regulations through after an hour and a half of debate.
Statutory instrument No. 443 deals with student regulations, which govern, among other things, who will receive the automatic 80 per cent. discount. YTS trainees will not receive it; nor will postgraduate students seconded by their employers in, for instance, the police, the armed forces and the Civil Service. Student nurses on the present nurse training schemes will not receive it—although some schemes allow them to do so—and 19-year-olds at school will not either. They are not exempt like 18-year-olds; they must apply for a rebate.
Such issues will hit the electorate suddenly in April next year. The Government may try to slide the regulations through late at night in the irresponsible and authoritarian way that they adopt from time to time, but people in the real world will not forget.
In the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order, the Secretary of State has refused to use his discretion to extend the "severely mentally impaired"

901
criterion to degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. That, along with the hour and a half that we have been allowed in which to debate the orders, shows what a mean-minded Government we have The exemption of certain mentally handicapped groups had to be squeezed out of them, and it is not difficult to find groups such as those suffering from Alzheimer's disease who are still not exempt.
What will Conservative Members do when people come to their surgeries and ask, "Why should my relative, who is suffering form Alzheimer's disease, pay the poll tax?"? They will use the same dodges as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who slipped out rather than coming out with me tonight to see the homeless in the streets. They will do a big cover-up: they will con and duck and weave to fool people into believing that they care. They will say, "I will see the Minister about this." But tonight they will go through the Lobby and vote for the regulations, and that is why the Opposition will oppose them.
10.27 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the instruments, and I do not think that the Government have anything to hide or to fear from them. We made it clear at the time of the general election that we believed that there was a need for reform of the local government finance system, and these measures will ensure that that reform is implemented as fairly as possible. If anomalies crop up during that impression, we shall doubtless be able to take them into account.
I find no difficulty in giving my entire support to a system that replaces the present outdated and unfair rating arrangements. The idea that it reflects ability to pay is absolute nonsense. On Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, I had the opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—whether he thought that the present system reflected ability to pay. It is obvious that it does not: there are so many anomalies.
When, not long ago, my right hon. Friend the Member of State visited my constituency, I was able to take him to an estate agent and show him the huge range of rates payable on properties advertised there, which did not relate at all to the capital value of those properties. So I think it is absolutely right that we press on with the introduction of the community charge under these instruments.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend for clarification on one point, and I am sure there is an answer to it.
I was rather perturbed to see from statutory instrument No. 439, in schedule 1, regarding the setting up of the tribunals, that in the area of each non-metropolitan county other than Essex and Hampshire the appointing body is the county council. It is a rather complicated order and I want to know whether the county council, when appointing these bodies, will have to comply with the Widdicombe demand that there should be a balance of political complexion. I am worried because, if not, in my county, the Labour party will undoubtedly pack the committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me some assurance on that.
902
There has been some talk about the problem of joint and several liability. I do not think there is any problem here whatsoever. Most people will understand the fairness of this scheme.
In my opinion, the whole point of the introduction of the scheme is to bring greater accountability to local government. Unfortunately, that is sadly lacking with the present set-up. It is important that we have accountability, and by greatly extending the base of people who are paying for local authority services, we shall bring greater accountability.
We need to make it more and more clear that quite a considerable amount of money that local government spends will come either from Government grant or from the unified business rate. The amount that we are asking the community charge payer in each of the boroughs to pay is a very small proportion of the overall community charge. It is a small proportion that will represent an accountability of what a local authority is spending.
Mr. Allen McKay: Can the hon. Gentleman explain where the accountability comes in? At present, something like 50 or 60 per cent is raised by the local authority—that is accountability—and it is now being put down to 25 per cent. Accountability has been thrown out of the window.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am not quite sure why the hon. Gentleman is complaining. If he is complaining that the community charge will mean that a lower percentage of the money collected by the councils will come from the community charge payer, I should have thought he would welcome that.
Mr. McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, because I think that the hon. Gentleman misrepresented his own point.
Mr. McKay: What we complain about is that most of the community charge falls on the community, not on business, as the rates do now. Therefore, 95 per cent. of the people that I represent will pay a vast increase on what they are paying at the present time.
Mr. McLoughlin: If 95 per cent. will have to pay a vast increase on what they pay at the moment, the hon. Gentleman must be representing some very high-spending councils. The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. He cannot suggest to me that the present system is in some ways fair, because I do not believe that anybody can justify the system as it stands at the moment. There is a need for a new system for greater accountability.
Mr. GummerI wonder if it would help my hon. Friend in replying to the hon. Gentleman if he were to remind him —I am sure he would like to—that the proportion of local authority spending now covered by the domestic rate is about 25 per cent. That will continue under the community charge, and the business rate will continue to cover about 25 per cent. So the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat.
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not wish to take issue with my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked me why the community charge would lead to greater accountability. Everybody will pay something towards local government expenditure. That will lead to greater participation in local government

903
elections. All too often, we hear of only a very small number of people bothering to vote in county council or district council elections. The community charge will, I believe, lead to more people voting in local elections. They will take a greater interest in local government. Every hon. Member ought to welcome that. If they believe, as I do, that local government plays an important role, they ought to regret the abysmally poor turnout at local elections. There are no problems over joint and several liability. That is an Opposition red herring.
Ministers and many of my hon. Friends have criticised Greenwich for taking the Government to court. However,
904
by doing so, Greenwich council ensured that my right hon. Friend's leaflet was given a great deal of publicity. We should be glad that Greenwich drew the nation's attention to the fact that the Government were telling people about the important changes that are to take place. Many county councils and other councils that are controlled by Labour have told ratepayers all sorts of falsehoods about the community charge. Rather than criticise Greenwich council, as many of my hon. Friends have done, I pay it a tribute. It has done a great service to the Government and to the nation. People now know what the community charge is all about.
We have nothing to hide. The regulations should be passed so that local government finance and accountability can be made much more fair.
10.37 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: These measures are the latest substantial step down the road towards three dangerous conclusions. For many people it is a step towards greater poverty, and for many people and many local authorities it is a step towards more bureaucracy. For many people it is also a step towards less liberty.
The poll tax will result in greater poverty because the system requires that, no matter how poor one is, in most cases one will not be exempt. The instruments implement attachment orders if people cannot pay. In the end, they will be unable to escape. I was once asked at a public meeting whether I advised people not to pay. I said, "I can't advise you to do that, because they will get you in the end—it would be far worse to suffer the penalty of going through the courts and your goods being taken than to stand up, argue the case and try to ameliorate the effects of the poll tax."
Like every other hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House, I opposed the Bill but came to the conclusion that if the system could cope with the bureaucracy it would eventually catch people. The legal penalties are in place. Those who already have to bear exceptional financial burdens will be susceptible to pressure from those who implement the distraint mechanisms provided for in the instruments. To escape that pressure they will have to borrow money. They will then fall prey to the abhorrent alternative of getting even further into debt to those who charge high rates of interest to help them out.
Secondly, some people who are extremely poor will not be exempt, for no good reason. The Government decided that students should pay only 20 per cent. If we have to have the system, that concession should be made. But people on training schemes may have an income substantially less per week that many students have, even on their low grants. The payment on a youth training scheme might be only £30 per week, whereas a student at a university, college or polytechnic might receive the equivalent of £50 per week. There will be differences between students and student nurses. Some people with higher activity costs will be expected to pay an undiscounted rate.
Thirdly, there are exemptions—thank goodness—for some mentally handicapped people. Those are the least of the concessions that could have been made. But other categories of people in equal mental adversity whose condition physically or mentally is equally problematical in terms of their ability to play a ful part in society, will still be required to pay. There is a specific exemption in the definition of residential homes for people who live in residential accommodation run by the Abbeyfield Society. That is specified in statutory instrument 222, paragraph 9(1). I welcome that—the society was founded in Rotherhithe—but I find it difficult to understand why it should be mentioned by name and be exempt when many other organisations running residential homes are not.
Next, there will be massive bureaucracy as a result of the measures. The estimate by the Department of the Environment of the amount that people will pay in poll tax was based on 100 per cent. compliance, with everybody being found and everybody paying, but I gather that it is now accepted that there was a substantial under-estimate of the cost of collection. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us in his reply what was the original estimate for
906
the cost of collection in Scotland and what is the latest figure in practice. I understand that the cost of collection in Scotland is about 20 per cent. higher than the Government estimated. That means that a massive additional cost will have to be met by the people paying the poll tax.
There is dangerous bureaucracy, as evidenced in the issue that my colleagues in the Isle of Wight county council have taken up with the Government and challenged. The Department of Education and Science has ruled that names and addresses of parents held by schools are not to be made available to the registration officers, but that if the same names and addresses are held by the local education authority they are to be available. Names and addresses might well be held by an education authority, because it might also be the social services authority, and might therefore know who the adults were in the house in which a child lived. The registration officer may acquire the information, but only by a bureaucratic procedure that will add to the work load not just of the collecting authority but of another authority as well.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to but did not amplify the gory details of perhaps the most classic piece of drafting in any of the six orders —paragraph 23(7) of SI 438 on joint and several liability, a one-sentence paragraph of 139 words with eight cross-references in turn referring to 30 other regulations. If that is clear legislation, there is something wrong with the definition of clarity used by Government Departments.
There are also illogical and bureaucratic differences between people of 18 who are at work and have to pay, and people of 19 who are still at school. There are all sorts of ridiculous provisions which will make the system impossible to work. The worst aspect is tracking people down. Let us consider students in London. Students move around. They do not have the same accommodation for three years; often they do not even have the same accommodation for one year. In London there are more than 100 colleges, and there are 33 local authorities. Often the colleges do not know where the students are staying. There is a shortage of accommodation. Students move and cannot be tracked down, but local authorities will be charged with the responsibility of trying to find them.
Equally, there are many homeless people in constituencies such as mine. People live on the floors of other people's homes. They stay for a week or a fortnight at their brother's, sister-in-law's, aunt's or friend's and then move on. It is naive to imagine that when they move their first act will be to go to the local treasurer's office to inform him that they have changed flats and will be living somewhere else for a short time. The administration involved is ludicrous.
Another bad bureaucratic development has to do with payment by instalments. Apparently, it will be possible to pay in this way. That is fine. We can pay our rates in instalments now—10 of them per year—if we ask to do so. But the regulations require a minimum instalment of £5. The Government said during the debates on the legislation that poor people would have maximum rebates and would be able to pay, for example, on a weekly basis—with their rent, if they were council tenants. If the minimum instalment is £5, they will not pay small amounts regularly over the year. To a basic pensioner, £5 is a substantial sum if he has little else on which to live.
Finally, there are the dangers to liberty, which constitute the most frightening aspect of the six

907
regulations. I hope that all hon. Members are aware that the enforcment officers can demand that occupiers of houses give information about other occupiers, even if they have no legal responsibility for them. We can be required to grass on other adults to whom we are not related. Two other adults live in my house now. As the occupier of the house, I shall be obliged by the regulations to divulge information—if I am asked—and there is a penalty if I do not comply. The system should be directed at making us personally responsible, not at creating a nation of sneaks to do the Government's job for them.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I will not give way unless the hon. Gentleman is generous enough to concede that grassing should not be included in the legislation and to vote against it. It is an unjustified invasion of the civil liberties of a country which is supposed to be setting an example—
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Hughes: I will not give way, unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the concession that I asked for, and I do not think that he is.
Local authorities will be given a wide brief to collect information for the register, including collecting from the commercial sector. If they collect information from every Tom, Dick and Harry, there will be even more risks of data-based private information being leaked.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I hesitate to interrupt, but unless there are extreme differences of which I am unaware in the English and Welsh legislation, it is the poll tax registration officer and not the local authority who collects the information—and is responsible to no one.
Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Technically, he is right. The poll tax officer is responsible to the Government, if to anyone. The problem is that he will be perceived as going out on behalf of the local authority, because unless the local authority receives the money it will not be able to spend it. So local authorities face a horrendous dilemma—if they want the full whack to spend on social services, home helps and care for the mentally ill, they will have to employ a large number of people to do the impossible bureaucratic job of securing maximum compliance with poll tax, and they will waste a great deal of money in the process, so their other budgets will suffer accordingly.
Reams of sensitive information about people's past records, their relationships and their mental and physical history will be around. If all such information is to be open so that the system can acquire it, people will be able to pry on behalf of the Government to collect money in a way that we have not seen before. It is already clear that the Government are centralising our society. Through these measures, they are taking steps that will allow them to pry and probe into homes in England and Wales as well as those in Scotland in a way that has never before been tolerated. If we had a representative Government, we should never have these instruments. The sooner we get rid
908
of the present Government and replace them with a representative Government, the sooner we shall get rid of these measures.
10.50 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I shall first place on record the facts of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said yesterday and today, rather than what he chose to say in the House, after which he refused to let the hon. Member whose honour he impugned have the opportunity to reply. He wrote a letter to me yesterday, saying:
"I have arranged for us to be in Centrepoint (hostel for homeless youngsters) at 8.45 tomorrow as agreed.
I shall have to return to the House of Commons to lead the Poll Tax debate at 10 pm but workers at Centrepoint would like to take you to meet other youngsters who can't find a hostel place."
When I got that letter, I pointed out to his research assistant, as I could not get hold of the hon. Gentleman, that I also had to be in the Chamber for the debate at 10 o'clock, and that I had to be there before then because I was acting as Whip for the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I offered the hon. Gentleman's research assistant another date. I said that I would be very happy to go on another occasion.
I am still happy to do that, but I am not happy to go with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who has been so dishonest in his suggestions that I had tried to get out of an engagement. I put that on record as an example of the behaviour that we had from the hon. Gentleman in Committee considering the Local Government and Housing Bill, and what we are getting now. That is cheap, dishonest and contemptible.
The debate on the community charge is an important one, but I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who has just said that it is outrageous that he, as the occupier of a house, should declare who the other adult occupiers of his house are. He has to do that for the electoral roll. That is the duty imposed by law on the citizen. The Liberal party always supported it. The Representation of the People Act 1918 was a Liberal Act. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should think it right for the Government to impose a duty on the occupier to declare who is living in the house in order that they may vote, as is their right, but that he does not think it is also his duty, as the main occupier of the house, to declare, for the purpose of paying the charge for which they get that vote—
Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bennett: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman because he has repeatedly told the House that he intends to break the law, and that he does not intend to pay the community charge, so we do not want to listen to him.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman take on board this point? The difference between the two, as I am sure that he understands, is that the opportunity given to the occupier to declare who is there so that they have a vote gives those people a right and an intitlement. This is different. It imposes on them an obligation with financial consequences and prospective penalties for them as well as

909
for the occupier. This, in legislation, where people are meant to be individually accountable, by his Government's definition.
Mr. Bennett: That is an interesting proposition. The hon. Gentleman thinks it right that the law should say that where someone is to get a right, that must be declared, but when there is a duty or an obligation on them as a citizen, we keep quiet about that. That is disgraceful. That is the mentality of someone who does not report accidents to the police and does not want to know when there has been a crime because that is not a part of his duty as a member of the community. The SDLP should be in favour of citizens playing their full part.
Mr. Gummer: The duty and obligation to pay the community charge occurs not because a person's name has been put on the list but because the person has that duty as a result of an Act passed by the House. Therefore, the person who fills in the form does not extend the duty and the obligation to the people whose names and addresses he puts on that form.
Mr. Bennett: My right hon. Friend anticipates my next point. The Local Government Act 1988 was in the Conservative party manifesto on which I and my colleagues fought and won the 1987 general election. It was clearly set out in that manifesto and was passed by both Houses of Parliament without any difficulty whatsoever.
Opposition Members are seeking to tell the public which laws they should have to obey and which laws they should ignore.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Conservative manifesto specifically excluded any commitment to poll tax capping. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that an amendment is introduced to remove that?
Mr. Bennett: The Conservative manifesto contains nothing whatsoever about the poll tax. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the community charge, we might listen to him. It is important that we call it the community charge because that is what it is. It is a fundamental philosophical point that the community charge is a charge for local government services. It is not a tax; it is a charge to all adults who are not exempt to pay for the services that they receive. It is a charge, just as the cost of a television licence is a charge, or the excise duty on a motor vehicle is a charge. People would find it strange if they were charged different sums for exactly the same services. Every person over 18 has one vote and has equal benefit from local government services.
The nonsense of the rates was that they were fixed not on the ability of the person to pay or his ability to use the services, but merely on the size of his house. A ridiculous and unfair situation could occur when four or five adults in a house would pay exactly the same in rates as one person living next door— [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is shouting, perhaps he would like to intervene.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to intervene. Does he not recognise that, on the whole, richer people live in higher-rated houses?
Mr. Bennett: That is totally irrelevant, because it is not the house that uses the services. The people inside the
910
house use local government services. The house is irrelevant. It was a convenience used by Victorian administrators who introduced the rates as a simple way of collecting a charge from local ratepayers. It had no bearing on the services that those ratepayers used. Houses do not use local government services, and five adults living in a house will use those services five times as much as one individual.
Mr. Carlile: Is it not a logical corollary to assume that the hon. Gentleman believes that all people should pay the same amount of income tax, whatever they earn?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the difference between a charge and a tax. Income tax is a graduated tax for all the services available within the community, and quite clearly people are charged according to their ability to pay. The community charge applies to local authority services, and there is a limit to the services that a person can use.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that people on higher incomes would be paying more for local government finance as they will be paying more taxes towards central Government funding of local government? Does he accept that there is a rebate system of up to 80 per cent. so that those who are less well off will pay less under the community charge?
Mr. Bennett: Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) anticipates my next point. In England, 46 per cent. of local government services are provided by central Government grants, and in Wales the figure is 66 per cent. Therefore, those paying the top rate of income tax will pay 15 times as much towards local government services as those on the bottom rate.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware how much pain the Labour party's proposals will cause poor people in Northolt and other parts of my constituency who are fortunate enough to own their own home? They would be forced to pay rates according to the updated capital value of their home, as well as local income tax, under Labour's proposal. Those people are already in great difficulty trying to pay rates that have been doubled by the Labour-controlled Ealing council in three years. Many have to go without food to pay those rates.
Mr. Bennett: I have the most perceptive colleagues possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) anticipates what I was going to say. In Ealing, the rates are currently £537 per head, for those who pay them. The community charge will be £234 and on the Labour plan of 80:20 for capital value tax and local income tax, the unfortunate Ealing resident would pay £695.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: May I take my hon. Friend back briefly to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)? Surely my constituency is not unusual, in that it contains many elderly couples and many elderly people who, sadly, have lost their spouse. They are living in houses that represent what they were earning many years ago. The houses no longer represent their current income,

911
because the owners are pensioners. Those are the people who are paying outrageous rates at present and for whom the community charge will deliver justice at long last.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as usual, speaks for the under-privileged in his constituency in a way that Labour Members do not.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the relation of individuals to the service that they require that those who have the most children and who need the most social services should be paying even more because they use more services?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman used the word "require". I said that the community charge was fair because it imposed the same charge on each individual who had a vote. The important point is, if it is related to voting, that people have a vote in local government elections, so they should make an equal contribution if they are able to do so. For those who cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, there is a rebate of up to 80 per cent. of the full charge.
It is a misnomer to talk about "student nurses". They are receiving a salary and are earning twice as much—if not more—as students on a grant. To describe them as students is not correct. They earn as much as many other young workers and those other young workers will be in the same position with the community charge. I regret that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should speak about student nurses without making that point clear.
The Social and Liberal Democrats want to have some form of local income tax which would mean, in most cases, the doubling of what people will pay in the community charge. The Labour party wants to go further. It wants local income tax and capital value rates as well. That would mean, in many cases, three or four times the amount people will pay under the community charge. The community charge is a fair tax and a reasonable charge to make on people, so we should support it.
11.12 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate has been immoderately short—
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not presume to attempt to influence your choice of speaker. I want only to ask you to consider the following. This evening, the Government tabled six sets of instruments, with more than 94 pages of detail. We have had the maximum allocated time of one and a half hours. It may not be in your province to decide how much business can be tabled within a certain length of time, but it must be obvious to you—given that one of your roles is the protection of Back Benchers' interests—that to have no Opposition Back Bench speaker called during the debate due to the compression of business is not a democratic way to debate these matters. Perhaps when we come to consider the regulations further, either extra time could be allocated or those who have shown an interest by attempting to speak today might be borne in mind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The House agreed last Friday that we should proceed in this manner today.
Mr. Murphy: I can understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is of course, important to have a Welsh dimension to this debate, and although the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) represents a Welsh constituency, I am bound to say that he does not by any means speak for the vast majority of people in the Principality on the question of the poll tax. Indeed, he does not even speak for his own constituency, in as much as 60 per cent. of the people in his constituency voted for parties which opposed the poll tax at the last general election.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I won.
Mr. Murphy: Hidden in the details and complexities of the legislation lie some of the most fundamental problems of the poll tax and of how to administer it. We already know that the Government have introduced a tight timetable for registration. The period from 22 May—yesterday—to 1 December gives local authorities very little time in which to put the registers into operation.
There will be problems with social security records, which are bound to be used. Even library records will probably be used. The lists of parents that have to be provided to local authorities under the Education Reform Act 1988 will also probably be used.
There is no special treatment in the regulations for youngsters on youth training schemes, for student nurses, or for 19-year-olds who are still at school. We all know that the expense to both higher and further education colleges of appointing certification officers is bound to be immense and to add to the financial strain that is already affecting our educational establishments.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who has now left the Chamber, referred to the tribunals to be set up by this system of regulations. I ask the Minister to ensure that they are properly staffed and properly financed, because my experience as a former member of a rating and valuation panel is that such staff have had to suffer a shoestring budget for many years. All the signs are that the tribunals will be used much more extensively than they are at the moment.
I also ask the Minister to ensure that Ministers in Wales and his fellow Ministers in England consult valuation officers because I know that in south Wales there is great unease among those civil servants about the loss of their jobs. On the issue of enforcement, the court order for the attachment of earnings could lead to the dismissal of badly protected casuals and part-time employees. In Wales, we know all about that, because half our female work force is in low-paid part-time employment. Deductions from earnings take no account of the number of dependants or of mortgages or other vital commitments that people may have.
One problem with the method of payment and billing is that low-income poll tax payers will not benefit from instalments if the instalment results in a payment of less than £5. That is bound to hit those areas of the country, especially Wales, with an above average number of low-paid workers. One in four workers in Wales earns below £150 per week. If that is not a measure of low pay, I do not know what is.
Just before Christmas 1988, the Minister visited Cardiff and the local paper, the Western Mail, reported:
"According to Mr. Gummer, the son of a Welsh speaking vicar, the poor will get a better deal under the community

913
charge as will Wales itself because the new poll tax system will transfer almost £800 million a year from the rich south-east to poorer parts of Britain."
That not only shows a fundamental misinterpretation of how the business rate operates in Wales and England separately, but also a fundamental lack of knowledge of how ordinary people live in Wales and in other parts of the country. I hope that when the instruments come into force they will be enforced with a certain amount of compassion.
As for the cost implications of these measures in Wales, we were told only last week that the district councils in the Principality will be some £3 million pounds short. The local authorities wanted a specific grant of 75 per cent. towards the cost of administering the poll tax, not the uncertainties and the vagaries of the block grant. In my local authority of Torfaen, because poll tax spending was counted as part of the GRE, the council would have been better off without the grant.
The position in England is different. A specific grant of 50 per cent. is given to local authorities, and the other 50 per cent. is taken from the block grant. My colleagues from Wales and I do not understand why Wales has been treated differently from England. Whether in Wales or in England, the regulations are bound to have an enormous administrative and financial impact on local authorities and the people whom they serve. In my local authority, the number of staff dealing with those matters will have to be doubled. The number of distress warrants will increase from 1,200 to 5,000, the number of accounts from 25,000 to 77,000, and the number of payments from 95,000 to a staggering 570,000 in any given year. If that is not a recipe for administrative chaos in the months ahead, I do not know what is.
It is certain that the regulations are as offensive to British people as the poll tax. They impose a heavy financial and administrative burden on our councils and the people whom they serve. They threaten our civil liberties and offend the basic sense of fairness and decency among British people. The Government tried to delay registration, but it made no difference—the people rejected the poll tax in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election and in the county council elections in Wales and in England. By every measure of public opinion that we have seen in the past few months, the poll tax is as deeply unpopular as ever it was. I ask the House to reject the regulations.
11.11 pm
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I will address some of the specific points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred to the way in which the grant was operated in England and Wales. In Wales, every local authority is in grant, while some authorities in England are not. If there is no specific grant, authorities receive nothing towards their costs. It was felt to be more reasonable to operate the system in that way. In Wales, all authorities receive the sums of money that are put aside for them because of that technical difference. I do not think that there is a great difference between us on that issue.
I thought that we came to the nub of the arguments against—
Mr. Pike: We did not reach the nub of the arguments, because we were not allowed to.
Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I should address the points that I believe constitute the nub of the argument.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out the three reasons why he believed that the measures should not be passed. He said that the measures should not be passed because they would create greater poverty. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. The rebates under the community charge are more generous than the present rate rebates. That means that, because of the rebates, many people will find themselves better off. It will also mean that single parents with families will be particularly helped. The poorest people will be most helped by the community charge.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey clearly has not understood the system. People receiving an 80 per cent. rebate will also receive an extra amount of money in their social security income support, which, in most cases, will cover more than the 20 per cent. It will be covered in all areas where there is no exorbitant spending by the local authority concerned. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in that regard.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was wrong also, because the Liberal alternative as admitted by the Liberal party states that those on average incomes would be worse off if we have a local income tax than they would be under the community charge. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his own party politics and policy.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey went on to claim that the regulations will mean more bureaucracy. I find it extremely difficult to take the argument seriously.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?
Mr. Gummer: I want to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
The hon. Member claimed that the measures would involve more bureaucracy. That is rich, coming from a party that wants a local income tax. The Liberal party wants every local town hall to decide the details of income tax—to have a locally operated income tax supplement. The hon. Member cannot complain about bureaucracy if he proposes a system which would be far more complicated and expensive. Under his system, the whole of income tax would have to be rebased. At the moment, in most cases it is based on where people work. It would have to be rebased on where people live in order to be effective. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about bureaucracy, given his proposal.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also said that the regulations would mean less liberty. He said that somehow or other—
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?
Mr. Gummer: I hope to answer the points which were specifically, carefully, and I thought courteously raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
However, the hon. Member lapsed into some rather odd words. He said that he would not want to grass on people. He did not want to be a sneak. He is asked to provide names and addresses so that those people may

915
bear their fair share of the costs of local authority services. If they do not do that, others will have to bear more than their fair share.
I accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). We understand that the Liberals are happy to give information when it means that people get their rights, but they are unhappy to give information when it is a question of people's duties. I had always thought that the Liberal party, in its fine old tradition which many people in the past might have liked, believed that duties and rights went together. The late-lamented Gladstone would have had some pretty tough words for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about duties going with rights.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?
Mr. Gummer: I want to respond to questions which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a number of points, most of which were spoiled by his rather churlish attitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke showed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith had gone as near to misleading the House as it would be parliamentarily proper for me to refer to. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that my hon. Friend had refused to accompany him on an appointment when my hon. Friend had actually explained that he could not do so because of his duties in the House and he offered another date to accompany him. The comments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith were a scandal. For that reason, I do not see that any of his other points are worth answering.
Mr. Nellist: If the benefits of the poll tax are so self-evident, as the Minister has spent the past five or six minutes claiming, why are we debating 94 pages of regulations and orders in 90 minutes in the dead of night? Why were 21 million leaflets issued before the measures were debated, even though they came into effect before the House had debated them? Why did the Minister two weeks ago send a 620-word article to my local paper the Coventry Evening Telegraph and to the local paper of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? Indeed, as I discovered today, why did his boss the Secretary of State for the Environment send similar letters to 500 newspapers? If the benefits of the poll tax are so self-evident, why have so much public money and so much Government time been spent on this? Does this not reflect the Minister's panic about the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hate this Tory tax?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is wrong to write a perfectly fair article explaining the community charge in his local newspaper. I understand that that local newspaper offered opportunities for others to write in as well. However, in its editorial, that paper stated that the opposition to the community charge was a load of old rubbish.
The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed because the Coventry Evening Telegraph wrote a good article in its leader column saying how out of date were the views put forward by the Labour party. I am sorry that it did that.
916
I should have liked an article from the Labour party explaining the two taxes that it would like to put in place of the poll tax.
I come back to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on this, because I do not want him to miss out. He asked whether it was true that rich people generally lived in bigger houses than poor people. The answer to that is that four out of 10 people living in above average rated accommodation have below average incomes. That is a fact of life. There is little connection between the ability to pay and the value of the house in which a person lives.
When the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has explained in the Coventry Evening Telegraph why Coventry city council still will not carry out the ombudsman's directions on the poor people whom it cheated out of money, he could go on to explain to the tenant of a council house who had decided not to buy his house, that he would, under the Socialist tax, be taxed on the freehold value of the council house even though he did not own it and even though his income was not sufficient to buy it. I hope that he will be able to explain that on the doorstep. Very few Labour canvassers have been able to do so, and that is why there is such an argument in the party about it.
Mr. Nellist rose—
Mr. Gummer: I shall have to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I made some personal remarks about him, so it would be only right to give way.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister accept that, 10 days later, the Coventry Evening Telegraph gave me the opportunity to put our opposition to the poll tax in the same number of words as he put the case for it? I am grateful to my local newspaper for that.
Over half the families in Coventry depend on state benefit, and the poll tax will force thousands into penury. Artificial arguments about what will happen in two years' time after an election are hypothetical and cut no ice with people in Coventry who view the tax with horror.
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, he is saying something that is untrue, so I am sure that he is not saying that. Anybody on social security in the way that he has suggested will get an 80 per cent. rebate and will have their social security uprated to cover the other 20 per cent. The only case in which that would not be true would be if Coventry city council was overspending to such a degree that it should be ashamed of itself. If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman may like to explain to the tenants that he represents that the council is overspending and living off the backs of those who can least afford it. But I am sure that he will not want to explain that.
Mr. Soley rose—
Mr. Gummer: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, for reasons that he perfectly understands.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wilson: I want to put one specific point—
Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
Mr. Wilson: I did not just come in. I have been present throughout, trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister's weasel-like performance will not enable him to avoid answering one point about the regulations. He has not yet answered one point that has been made about the regulations—but he will answer one at least, and that relates to the alleged generosity of rebates. Will the Minister confirm that in the vast majority of districts in England and Wales, as in Scotland, any 25-year-old single person with a net income in the region of £60, will qualify not for an 80 per cent. or an 8 per cent. rebate, but for none at all?
Will the Minister also confirm that a person earning up to £65 a week and not qualifying for any rebate could have arrested from his wages only £2 a week, which the courts deem to be an appropriate amount? In other words, if a person in receipt of such earnings does not pay, and the Government are creating an incentive not to pay— [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gummer: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from the pamphlet "Ability to Pay" published by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Local Government Information Unit, which unfortunately have their facts and sums wrong. The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss this matter in detail.
The help that is given to those who are not able to pay the community charge is more generous than that which is offered to them under the rating system as it stands. It is a means of making sure that one in four of the population will have the opportunity of a rebate, and 5 million people will get the rebate. Therefore, with the uprating, unless they have a local authority which is maliciously overspending or is unable to bring its spending under reasonable control, they will have sufficient to cover the 20 per cent.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had a good slice of time.
There are difficulties in taking any fairer system. It is much easier to have an unfair system such as the rates because it is levied on people's property, even though property has no connection with people's ability to pay and the property does not use the services. We tax property because 19th-century local government services were largely property services. We now have a personal charge, because we are dealing with services which are overwhelmingly personal services; 80 per cent. of them are concerned, for example, with education and personal social services.
The reality of the argument about the regulations that we are discussing is that the Opposition parties—both parties or both sets of Opposition parties or whatever collection one might refer to nowadays—do not want to have the rates, they both have an alternative of their own and their alternatives are more expensive to collect, less reasonable and accountable and put larger numbers of people in unacceptable positions to pay; and neither of them has suggested any sensible system of rebating to deal
918
with the considerable attacks on poverty that have taken place. I feel strongly about this issue, because, as I have gone round the country, I have discovered why.
Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating statutory instruments, and you will be aware of the complaints about the lack of time being given by the Government to hon. Members to debate them. Is it not out of order for the Minister to stray so widely that he is discussing the proposals of other political parties, rather than the instruments? [Interruption.] We will certainly debate the alternatives, but we want to debate the regulations now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's attack is based on the principle that he does not like the facts when he hears them. The difficulty for the Opposition is that the more one looks at the alternatives—
Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must insist that this is a debate about the instruments. If the Minister wants to debate the alternatives, we will do that. I ask you to rule that it is not in order to widen the debate into what other political parties are proposing when we are debating these issues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time is very limited, and the Minister is endeavouring to answer the debate.
Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Depth y Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting very close to disputing the judgment of the Chair. I am sure that he does not intend to do that. I remind him that time is short.
Mr. Soley: I am aware that time is short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not disputing your ruling. However, I have not yet heard you rule on whether it is order, in a debate on statutory instruments, when prayers have been tabled, to widen the debate to include the philosophies of other political parties. I ask you to ask the Minister to stay in order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is answering a debate on a wide group of prayers.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member of Hammersmith devoted much of his speech to complaining about the complexity and nature of the orders. I suggest that, if it were ever the misfortune of this country to suffer a Labour Government in which the hon. Gentleman formulated orders, they would be so complex that there would be a longing to return to so simple a series of regulation as those before the House now.
The hon. Gentleman attacks the regulations without saying what he would put in their place. That is a very comfortable position for the hon. Gentleman to adopt. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who attempts to interrupt from a sedentary position, wrote a newspaper article that was attacked in the editorial as being out of the dark ages. The hon. Gentleman was attacked by his own local newspaper for being totally unable to answer the case that I put in it.

919
Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman has not favoured the House with a contribution on the community charge this evening.
The regulations are the proper way to move forward to the new system, which is fairer than the old because everybody pays their bit. It is fairer than the old because those people who need help to pay the community charge will get it. It is fairer also because, at long last, it gives accountability to local people and not to the management committee of the local Labour party.
11.32 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: As a Scottish Minister is on the Government Front Bench, I want to draw attention to some of the anomalies that now exist in Scotland. The hon. Member—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [19 May] , to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put:
The House proceeded to a Division
Mr. Pike(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Back Bencher, and having noticed that you and Mr. Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker have occupied the Chair during what has been a difficult debate, I seek your guidance as to whether there is any procedure whereby the Chair can prevent such a sham of a debate and a sham of democracy that right hon. and hon. Members have endured tonight. Many Back Benchers wanted to speak on major issues, but they have been given no opportunity to make points for the Minister to answer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a debating point that is not a matter for the Chair. The debate was conducted in order. The House decided last Friday that the debate on the group of prayers should last for one and a half hours.
The House having divided: Ayes 144, Noes 295.

Division No. 211]

[11.32 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Canavan, Dennis

Allen, Graham

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Armstrong, Hilary

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Ashton, Joe

Clay, Bob

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clelland, David

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Cohen, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Coleman, Donald

Battle, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Beckett, Margaret

Corbyn, Jeremy

Beith, A. J.

Cousins, Jim

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

Cummings, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Blunkett, David

Dalyell, Tam

Boateng, Paul

Darling, Alistair

Boyes, Roland

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradley, Keith

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

Buckley, George J.

Dixon, Don

Caborn, Richard

Douglas, Dick

Callaghan, Jim

Duffy, A. E. P.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Eadie, Alexander

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Eastham, Ken

920

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michael, Alun

Fatchett, Derek

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fisher, Mark

Morgan, Rhodri

Flannery, Martin

Morley, Elliott

Flynn, Paul

Mowlam, Marjorie

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mullin, Chris

Foster, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Fraser, John

Nellist, Dave

George, Bruce

O'Brien, William

Gordon, Mildred

O'Neill, Martin

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Parry, Robert

Hardy, Peter

Patchett, Terry

Haynes, Frank

Pike, Peter L.

Henderson, Doug

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hinchliffe, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Home Robertson, John

Redmond, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Reid, Dr John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rooker, Jeff

Illsley, Eric

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ingram, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Skinner, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lamond, James

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

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Litherland, Robert

Soley, Clive

Livsey, Richard

Spearing, Nigel

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Steinberg, Gerry

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Strang, Gavin

Loyden, Eddie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McAllion, John

Turner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Vaz, Keith

McCartney, Ian

Wall, Pat

Macdonald, Calum A.

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

McKelvey, William

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McLeish, Henry

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McNamara, Kevin

Wilson, Brian

McWilliam, John

Worthington, Tony

Madden, Max

Wray, Jimmy

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Martlew, Eric

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Meale, Alan

Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Alexander, Richard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

Allason, Rupert

Bright, Graham

Amess, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Amos, Alan

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

Arbuthnot, James

Browne, John (Winchester)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Ashby, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Aspinwall, Jack

Burns, Simon

Atkinson, David

Burt, Alistair

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Butcher, John

Baldry, Tony

Butler, Chris

Batiste, Spencer

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

Carrington, Matthew

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carttiss, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cash, William

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Chope, Christopher

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Boswell, Tim

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bottomley, Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Colvin, Michael

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bowis, John

Cope, Rt Hon John

921

Couchman, James

Janman, Tim

Cran, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Day, Stephen

Key, Robert

Devlin, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dicks, Terry

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dorrell, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dover, Den

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Lang, Ian

Emery, Sir Peter

Latham, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lawrence, Ivan

Evennett, David

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fallon, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Favell, Tony

Lilley, Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lord, Michael

Fookes, Dame Janet

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Forman, Nigel

McCrindle, Robert

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Forth, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Maclean, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

McLoughlin, Patrick

Franks, Cecil

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Freeman, Roger

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

French, Douglas

Major, Rt Hon John

Fry, Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Gale, Roger

Mans, Keith

Gardiner, George

Maples, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Marland, Paul

Gill, Christopher

Marlow, Tony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Maude, Hon Francis

Gorst, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gow, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mellor, David

Gregory, Conal

Miller, Sir Hal

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mills, Iain

Grist, Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Ground, Patrick

Mitchell, Sir David

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moate, Roger

Hague, William

Monro, Sir Hector

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moss, Malcolm

Hannam, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

Mudd, David

Harris, David

Neale, Gerrard

Haselhurst, Alan

Needham, Richard

Hawkins, Christopher

Nelson, Anthony

Hayes, Jerry

Neubert, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Heddle, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Norris, Steve

Hill, James

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hind, Kenneth

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Page, Richard

Holt, Richard

Paice, James

Hordern, Sir Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Howard, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

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

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunter, Andrew

Price, Sir David

Irvine, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Irving, Charles

Redwood, John

Jack, Michael

Renton, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Rhodes James, Robert

922

Riddick, Graham

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Thorne, Neil

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Thornton, Malcolm

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thurnham, Peter

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rost, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rowe, Andrew

Tracey, Richard

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tredinnick, David

Ryder, Richard

Trippier, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Trotter, Neville

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Scott, Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shelton, Sir William

Walden, George

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Ward, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shersby, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Sims, Roger

Watts, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wells, Bowen

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wheeler, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Ray

Speller, Tony

Widdecombe, Ann

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wiggin, Jerry

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wilshire, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas

Stern, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Stevens, Lewis

Wood, Timothy

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Yeo, Tim

Summerson, Hugo

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. Tony Durant and

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mr. David Lightbown.

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the poll tax legislation, passed last year, left 736 items to be determined by orders and regulations. In a debate from 10 pm to 11.30 pm, we have considered six measures that take up 94 pages.
Four Front Bench spokesmen of various parties and two Conservative Members of Parliament were called to speak in the debate. Labour Members of Parliament wished to express the anger felt by constituents about the regulations, but they did not have the opportunity to do so. The regulations were introduced in a way that meant that the Opposition had to place a prayer on the Order Paper to force a debate.
You have just declared the result of the vote on the measures. During the last minute or so, they have become resolutions of the House. However, they came into force yesterday, 22 May. They became law for community charge registration officers 24 hours before the House took a decision on them. Those outside Parliament will be unable to understand the arcane and archaic way in which legislation that is enacted on 22 May is not debated until 23 May.
Is there any way in which you and your colleagues, including Mr. Speaker, can exercise any authority over the business of the House and ensure that the remaining 736 items that are to be dealt with by regulation or order are dealt with not at the dead of night but in prime time, or are given sufficient time so that all hon. Members can express an opinion on them on behalf of their constituents?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that the Chair was doing on this occasion was carrying out an order of the House that was made last Friday. The Chair has no control over the length of speeches when prayers are being considered.
Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I have dealt with the point of order.
Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Nellist: I shall be brief.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nellist: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Nellist: I thank you for your ruling, which I am not challenging; nor was I challenging the length of the speeches or your selection of speakers. I was challenging the length of the debate, which restricted the number of hon. Members who could be called.

PETITION

  Football Identity Cards
  11.47 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of several thousand supporters of Derby county and members of the Football Supporters Association. I believe that I am allowed briefly to summarise their concern, although I am not allowed to speak to the petition.
  They believe that the proposal to have football identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football-related violence. What concerns them is that much of the violence takes place outside the ground and that it is best dealt with, as it is in Derby, through co-operation with the local police. Where such violence has taken place within the ground, the club—Derby County—has taken its own steps, through a key club and in some cases through a lifetime ban, to deal with such difficulties.
  The petitioners also believe that the proposal will hinder attempts to attract a new generation of supporters to our own or to other football clubs. In particular, they are concerned that this will deter the casual attender, who might have been attracted towards becoming a long-term supporter of the game.
  Finally, they are very concerned—as are all football supporters—by the entry problems that they believe a card system would cause. They were concerned about it before the Hillsborough disaster, but their concern has been heightened by what happened at Hillsborough. They call on the Government in their petition to bring forward proposals that would have the support of genuine football supporters.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Rain Forest (Government Policy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Fallon.]
11.49 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This has been a good parliamentary day for the rain forests when the chairman of the 1922 committee chose to use his question to the Prime Minister on that subject. It is a reflection of his own interests, which I respect, in conservation. It is a reflection, too, of the work done by television companies in programmes like "The Fragile Earth", and the work of the Friends of the Earth and many others who have raised the consciousness of this important subject of the tropical rain forest.
I wish to put some questions of which I have given the Minister and the Department notice. First, on Nepal, can anything be done about the urgent problem whereby, on account of relations with India, Nepal is so short of fuel that it has to cut down more of its forests than has been happening over the last few months? Could not something be done to help in the Gurkha situation which reached a climax with yesterday's statement?
Secondly, on Papua New Guinea, is there a case for helping those areas of the world that have rain forest that have passed laws where, if any tree is removed, another tree is planted? Those laws may be difficult to implement in the light of what the Japanese are doing in the island of New Guinea. May I recommend to the Minister a remarkable book by Evelyne Hong on the natives of Sarawak and the survival of Borneo's vanishing rain forest? Those of us who remember confrontation and were out there might reflect, as Michael Blair, who recommended the book to me and veterans of confrontation have done, that they did not risk their lives in order to see interesting peoples like the Punans and the Sea Dayaks being deprived of their eco-system. There is a moral issue involved.
Thirdly, I asked about the directives to the World Bank. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a statement. I put it as my personal controversial opinion that the World Bank should be able to make loans for nuclear stations. Many of my hon. Friends do not agree with this. I refer to the Minister's answer on 4 May:
"The development committee of the IMF/IBRD has already agreed to discuss environmental issues at its next meeting in September. Meanwhile, the World Bank is intensifying its work on these issues, including its role in the tropical forestry action plan.
The role of nuclear power is considered within the energy development plans of a few IBRD borrowing countries but its cost, high technology and demand on scarce human resources make it generally inappropriate at present for the vast majority of developing countries."—[Official Report, 4 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 189.]
That may be true, but the position in southern Brazil is different. It is immoral that the western world should get Brazil into deepening debt for nuclear power stations that are working at far from optimum capacity.
Fourthly, the Amar Indian chiefs Megaron and Payakan were my guests in the House of Commons. I took them to meet Mr. Speaker, for which I thank him. I also know that they saw the Minister. Perhaps he will reflect on his meeting with them.
Fifthly, I gave notice that I would ask what the attitude of the Government was in involving the European Community. I reflect that last week I was on an official
926
delegation that had an audience with the King of Spain. I had the opportunity to ask Juan Carlos about the subject in the presence of our ambassador, Lord Nicholas Gordon Lennox. Is there any way in which we can persuade the Spaniards, who cut much ice in South America—even in Portuguese South America—to help with the problem of the rain forests?
My sixth question, about climate, comes from the Friends of the Earth's Charles Secrett and Koi Thomson. What can the Government do to help Brazil come to terms with the burning season, which is from early July to October? I am glad that Ghillean Prance, the director of Kew, and Ron Kemp and Tim Sinnott should be going out for the Department. Could we adopt a system like that of the United States, and have a check list of human rights and environmental criteria for evaluating proposed loans, taking into account whether the projects for which they are sought are environmentally sustainable?
We must think in terms of providing guaranteed access to satellite imagery, and help with interpretation, so that the rain forest countries can know what is going on—what forests are being destroyed, and why. Most rain forest countries' Governments face difficulties, and assistance must be given in a non-interventionist way.
On 11 May, the Prime Minister answered:
"The further assistance which we are currently discussing with the Brazilian Government with respect to the protection of the rain forests is likely to be in the area of technical co-operation rather than capital aid for equipment like helicopters."—[Official Report, 11 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 490.]
The Prime Minister, helicopters and I do not usually mix, but at the top of the Brazilians' list of requirements are four large cargo helicopters and two personnel carrying helicopters. They also say they need fire fighting planes, twin engined planes, gliders, vehicles, trailers, tank lorries, equipment-carrying lorries, trailer-pulling vehicles, boats for the establishment of bases, hard-hulled boats for sub-bases, hard-hulled boats, low draught fliers, camping material, and a radio and communication system. When Mr. Mesquite, the Brazilian Minister for the north, saw me in Brasilia, this was the list that he had in mind. We should take it into account.
Finally, I gave the Minister notice that I would refer to the New Scientist leading article of 20 May 1989, which states:
"Now it is the turn of the poor countries to expand, if the populations of the Third World are to be supported in their present and projected numbers, they must industrialise. The question is how. If they follow Europe and America—inefficiently burning large amounts of cheap coal and oil, demolishing forests and using inexpensive, chlorinated hydrocarbons for everything from pesticides to refrigerators —we will all drown, or fry together.
In Helsinki, China sought an international fund to help it to replace ozone-threatening chemicals with safe ones. The Chinese are not holding the planet to ransom. They know we are all in this together, and they want to use clean technology. But they will not be able to impose more expensive technology on an already hard pressed population when cheaper technology is to be had.
The same applies to India, Brazil and the other poor giants whose farms, factories and populations will one day control the fate of the atmosphere. And yet, Ridley, and his counterparts in the EEC, bitterly opposed such a fund in Helsinki."
What is the Government's attitude to accepting some moral responsibility? The rain forest countries may naturally be proud of their sovereignty, but rain forests are part of a world problem.

927
I shall cut short my remarks, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has played a distinguished role in this area, a chance to speak. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Do I understand that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has the agreement of both the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Minister to speak?
11.58 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is a welcome tribute to my hon. Friend that so many hon. Members are here for the debate.
My hon. Friend has pointed out a fundamental problem that the whole world is facing, and that the British Government and the British Parliament can assist in solving.
I have tabled a number of questions to the Prime Minister on the subject of the rain forests. Today's asked:
"what information she has received concerning the rate of destruction of the world's forests for each of the past 20 years; and if she will make a statement."
The answer she gave was that she did not have the information for the whole of that period but
"the latest internationally comparable figures were published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1982 and relate to tropical forests during the period 1976–80."
So this is quite some time ago. The destruction rates were—in Africa 1·33 million hectares a year or 0·61 per cent. of the total; in Asia and the Pacific, 1·82 million hectares a year, or 0·59 per cent. of the total; and in Latin America, 4·12 million hectares, or 0·61 per cent. of the total. Overall, in that period, on average 0·61 per cent. of the total rain forest is being destroyed every year. In some countries in west Africa and Latin America, the rate has increased visibly since 1980, to the extent that the Gambia has lost 90 per cent. of its tropical rain forests. The situation there is catastrophic.
The Minister has answered questions on this subject many times in past debates. The main question concerns what can we do to influence the policies of the European Community, the World Bank, the international monetary fund and the foreign aid policies of the British Government. Much of the past development in Brazil of the Grand Carejas project was funded largely by loans from the World Bank and the European Community, which paid for cheap iron ore to be excavated, in order to pay for Brazil's debt. That also financed the destruction of much of the rain forest and the habitat of much wildlife and many people who lived in that area.
There are many examples of the IMF adopting a strategy of insisting that every poor country must produce its way out of debt—in other words, by going for export-led promotion of primary products, which has often led to the destruction of forest. It is short-sighted and inefficient. I have three quite graphic personal examples produced by the Sierra Club, the club of people acting as global environmental monitors on what the World Bank is doing. It quotes a man called Renato in Brazil, who could not believe his luck when he was given 100 hectares of rain forest to clear. The problem was that, after he had cleared
928
it, as his friends also found, they produced good crops for a couple of years, but the soil was unsustainable for future crops, and the land turned into desert.
In Botswana, massive grazing was introduced for developing a cattle industry. The grazing took place, but that led to desertification as the forests were cut down to promote it. In Java, Indonesia, people from the city were given two or three hectares each to produce crops, but the deforestation led to local climatic changes, which led to serious problems of leaching of the soil, and subsequent infertility, and desertification.
For each country concerned, it is disastrous. For the individuals concerned, be they the indigenous peoples of the Amazon or the farmers encouraged to move into those places, it is disastrous, but for the planet as a whole, it is doubly disastrous because we are losing many sources of wildlife and flora. We are losing a major producer of oxygen and replacing it with a major producer of carbon monoxide, which contributes to the global warming effect.
We are looking for the strongest possible representations by the British Government for environmentally sensitive policies that protect the rain forests, and an understanding that, if we are to contribute to the world's environment, we cannot go on demanding such enormous debt repayments from the poorest countries and peoples. By doing so, we are contributing to the destruction of the planet on which we all rely for life. I know that the Minister has looked into this on many occasions, and that many changes are taking place in the attitudes of the IMF and his Ministry. We look forward to a much more robust performance in the future to protect the environment of the world and the people who live in it.
12.4 am
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Christopher Patten): I welcome the opportunity to debate a subject of considerable global significance with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who I know feels very deeply about it. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was able to intervene. The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows that I feel as strongly as he does about the subject. I visited the Oxford Forestry Institute for much of last Thursday and that visit increased my concern and interest. I greatly admire the work of that world-renowned institute and I hope that we shall be able to give it greater assistance in future.
I welcome the opportunity today to report the activity by my Department since the hon. Gentleman last raised the subject, in a debate on 13 March. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out the consequences of deforestation in the rain forests and elsewhere, and described our existing aid. Most importantly, he explained the outlines of the forestry initiative that we are undertaking in response to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's pledge to the House that
"we will direct more of our aid to encourage the wise and sustainable use of forest resources." [Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c.15.]
Since the last debate, the significance of my right hon. Friend's pledge has been reinforced by the seminar that she held on global climate change. Forest destruction contributes up to 20 per cent. of man's total carbon dioxide emissions—yet forests could provide a significant way of locking up carbon for lengthy periods and in that way alleviating global warming.

929
Halting and reversing the current alarming rates of loss of all types of forest would thus benefit us all. Promoting alternative sustainable livelihoods for the desperately poor around the world who are currently forced to clear forests for agriculture would help them by stopping soil erosion, flooding and loss of soil fertility. Trying to halt the unsustainable destruction of rain forests has the added global benefit of preserving the world's richest store of genetic diversity. With the prospect of all those benefits, it is no wonder that we are devoting considerable effort to our forestry initiative. We are concentrating especially on the most important facet—encouraging individual developing countries to direct more of our aid to forestry.
It is important that, before we spend money on projects, we should engage in dialogue with our partner Governments so that we agree the relative priority to be given to forestry within our relationship. Projects that do not meet the priorities of our partners are unlikely to be effective. As a prelude to that dialogue, my staff reviewed the possibilities and identified more than 20 countries where we are particularly well placed to help. The list is long because we in Britain are fortunate in the wealth of our tropical forestry expertise.
Since the last debate, dialogue with those countries has already resulted in an impressive amount of action. Most importantly, we have actually reached agreement with India on £40 million of new local costs aid for environmental projects. As the House might expect, given the high priority that India gives to forestry, we expect the bulk of this to be spent on forestry projects although it is also available for local costs incurred in helping India to adopt alternative strategies to the use of chlorofluorocarbons. I shall return to that point. We hope that the first project to benefit from the agreement will be a scheme to conserve the forests of western Ghats in Karnataka state of south western India. The western Ghats include the largest area of evergreen rain forest in India. The project will involve a joint effort by the local people and the Forest Department to reduce forest clearance, burning and grazing and to rehabilitate or replant degraded areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Brazil and asked about my recent meeting with Chiefs Payakan and Raoni. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Latin America is not in general a focal point for our aid programme. The poorest countries and the Commonwealth continue to be our first priority, but we are very conscious of the importance of Latin America's forests and we are actively seeking ways in which we can help.
We have had fruitful discussions with two very senior Brazilian officials, the Secretaries-General of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of the Interior. I shall be meeting Dr. Mesquita, director of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Natural Resources, at the beginning of next month. The Brazilians think highly of the research being carried out by the Royal Geographical Society and others in the Maraca rain forest project, and they would like the ODA to do more in that area. As the hon. Gentleman said, this week a group of experts, led by my senior forestry adviser and including Dr. Prance, the distinguished director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, are visiting Brazil to discuss with institutions there how we could help.
One of the projects that our mission will be looking into is possible help for research on the effect of rain forest loss on climate and rainfall—a point to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has drawn attention in the past.
930
That is of particular concern to all of us. The group will also include an expert on urban environment, as the Brazilians are eager for us to help with the many problems of their huge and growing cities. It is reasonable that we should try to assist there as well as in the forests.
Mr. Dalyell: Is Tim Sinnott the urban environment expert?
Mr. Patten: I will give the hon. Gentleman further information on that later.
The Brazilians have not asked us for capital aid. I gather that they are likely to put forward proposals for support of that kind to the World Bank. Until our mission reports, I cannot say exactly what form our collaboration will take, but I am hoping to visit Brazil myself in July to carry matters forward. We give this issue priority. I have not only met Brazilian officials. I have also had meetings with the Indian Chiefs Raoni and Payakan, who have vividly, movingly and with considerable dignity, told me of their problems and of the need to demarcate their reserves to save them from further exploitation. I emphasise that have promised to consider positively any proposals that the British charity, the Rainforest Foundation, might put forward to us for joint funding.
In that context, I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman had discussed Amazonia with His Majesty the King of Spain. There is obviously a need for everyone to engage in dialogue with the countries of the Amazon basin about the global importance of their resources. Spain is especially well placed to help. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the European Community, in appropriate programmes, should take account of the environmental impact of development.
The mission to Brazil is not the only one that my staff are undertaking. A team has recently returned from Sri Lanka and is currently preparing proposals for a joint project with the World Bank aimed at research, forest management and reaforestation in the southern uplands. A team of experts are travelling to Indonesia this week to identify in discussion with the Government there areas in which we can provide further assistance.
We have also been active in west Africa. One of my forestry advisers took part in the tropical forestry action plan sector review in Cameroon in late April and was able to offer our support for a project in forest management and regeneration techniques as part of total donor pledges of more than $50 million. At present, there is little forest management or application of sustained yield principles in Cameroon, which contains twice as much utilisable lowland forest as the rest of west Africa.
Mr. Dalyell: I acknowledge the importance of west Africa, which the Minister knows well, but before the Minister leaves the subject of Asia, will he tell us whether, the delegation to Indonesia will also consider the questions of Papua New Guinea and Sarawak?
Mr. Patten: I am coming to Papua New Guinea shortly, if I have the opportunity. I have not exhausted the list of activities that are under way, but I had better turn to some of the other specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman referred to relations between India and Nepal. We had a useful debate on that issue on 28 April, in which I made clear the Government's views. As both countries know, we very much hope they can reach a settlement satisfactory to both, before lasting damage is

931
caused to the development and economy of Nepal—already one of the world's poorest nations. We are, of course, particularly disturbed by the delays and extra costs inflicted by this dispute on development projects of great importance to Nepal's future and the consequences for its forests. The World Bank is evaluating the effect of the dispute. There has been no evidence yet that special measures are necessary but, as always, we would look sympathetically on any request for help. I was able to discuss that issue informally with Nepal's distinguished Finance Minister in Beijing a couple of weeks ago.
Of course, Nepal's forest degradation long preceded the present dispute and forestry has had a high priority in our aid programme over the past 10 years. Our current commitments to forestry projects in Nepal are about £7 million. A forestry master plan for the development of the sector over the next 25 years is being discussed by the Government and donors. We have agreed that the ODA should build on our existing strengths in forestry research and large-scale community forestry programmes.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked about Papua New Guinea. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade recently met Mr. Philemon Embel, who described the existing structure of forest management, logging, export from and replanting in Papua New Guinea. I understand that efforts are being made to ensure that appropriate re-afforestation takes place, in accordance with the country's laws, but that enforcement remains a problem. At present exports, which go mainly to Japan, consist primarily of logs, and little processing of timber is carried out in Papua New Guinea itself. During the short meeting, Mr. Embel made no specific request for assistance from the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
As hon. Members will appreciate, Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the international tropical timber agreement. I look forward to hearing a report of the discussions this week at the ITTO council meeting in Abidjan. It is of vital importance to all who care about the rain forest that the International Tropical Timber Organisation should reach agreement on codes of conduct for the sustainable management of commercial logging. That is the only way to ensure that the resource will still be available for our grandchildren.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned the World Bank. Since its reorganisation in 1987, the bank has significantly expanded its environmental work, with special attention being paid to the threat of deforestation.
932
In the bank's last financial year, it made nearly $170 million of new commitments for forestry projects, including conservation.
The hon. Gentleman referred in passing to climate research. Man-made climate change is possibly the greatest challenge to the principle of sustainable development. That is one reason why we attach such importance to the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Dr. John Houghton, director general of the Meteorological Office, chairs the scientific assessment working group of the IPCC. The Government fund plenary meetings of the group and have made available a further £665,000 for a special centre and staff. This is the largest international review ever undertaken. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the research now taking place in this country.
We do not believe that panic measures are justified, but equally we agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that it is not enough simply to sit back and wait for our research programmes to bear fruit. To have any real effect, our responses must be internationally agreed and implemented, and they must recognise the difference between countries. It is with this in mind that we have recently called for the urgent consideration of a framework convention on climate change.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow drew attention to an article in the New Scientist about the Helsinki conference. That article is worth a whole debate. My views on the issues raised form the basis of an hour's lecture that I gave in Cambridge, a copy of which is available in the Library. All that I would like to say now is that the opposition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and of other Ministers present at the conference, to a common fund for CFC replacement projects was based in part on the fact that the bureaucratic process needed to set one up would delay the practical help that we could provide under the bilateral aid programme. As I said earlier we have already offered such help to India. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my right hon. Friend's statement, and I will ask that it be placed in the Library.
I have no doubt that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to help countries such as India, China and Brazil to cope with CFC substitution as well as with the problems of forestry to which the hon. Gentleman has eloquently referred again today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Printed Matter (Preservation)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what is his policy for co-ordinating processing arrangements in connection with printed matter and material held in the various museums, archives and libraries which are the responsibility of his Department;

  (2) what study he has made of the processing arrangements for printed matter and material under development in the United States of America, Canada and Austria; if any useful lessons have been learned from the techniques employed in these and other countries; and if he intends to introduce changes in British practice.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the institutions themselves to ensure that their processing arrangements are efficient and up to date and to keep in touch with developments. The British Library, for example, is among the leaders in the development of bibliographic standards and techniques and works closely with libraries and other institutions both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  Schools (Educational Opportunities)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the use made of the educational opportunities afforded to schools by arts bodies.

  Mr. Luce
  I believe that arts bodies, museums and galleries and public libraries all offer valuable ways of supplementing and supporting the teaching in schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are commissioning work on a package of material, illustrating good practice, which will be distributed to all maintained schools early next year. The booklet will provide examples of the range of learning opportunities available in the contemporary arts and in museums and will show how these and similar initiatives in related fields can have wider educational applications.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the index of manufacturing output for each of the standard regions and Wales for each 12-month period from June 1979 to June 1988, inclusive.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Information on the standard regions of England is not available; using latest published data, the indices of manufacturing output for Wales are as follows:

  Year1

  Wales

  1979–80

  99·1

  1980–81

  90·6

  1981–82

  94·9

  440

  Year1

  Wales

  1982–83

  93·0

  1983–84

  98·9

  1984–85

  99·8

  1985–86

  102·1

  1986–87

  113·3

  1987–88

  128·5

  1985 = 100, seasonally adjusted.

  1 Averages for the periods 3rd quarter to 2nd quarter.

  Source: Welsh Office.

  Production Industries
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the index of production industries in each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales for each 12-month period from June 1979 to June 1988.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Information on the standard regions of England is not available; using latest published data, the indices of production for Scotland and for Wales are as given below:

  Year1

  Scotland

  Wales

  1979–80

  99·6

  105·9

  1980–81

  92·4

  95·2

  1981–82

  93·6

  97·7

  1982–83

  93·0

  98·5

  1983–84

  95·4

  98·1

  1984–85

  98·2

  95·5

  1985–86

  99·2

  102·5

  1986–87

  97·9

  108·2

  1987–88

  102·9

  119·2

  1985 = 100, seasonally adjusted.

  1 Averages for the periods 3rd quarter to 2nd quarter.

  Source: Scottish Office, Welsh Office.

  VAT
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the revised proposals by the European Economic Community for the revision of value added tax arrangements in the United Kingdom, and, in particular, what items, at present zero-rated, would require to be taxed; and if there are any other proposals linked to the arrangements proposed by the European Economic Community for changes in excise duty.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The Commission announced its revised thinking on indirect taxation in the single market on 17 May. It now accepts that some zero rates may be retained, but still seeks a measure of tax approximation in the shape of an unspecified minimum standard rate for VAT; a reduced VAT rate band as previously proposed; and, as yet unspecified, minimum rates or rate bands for excise duties. It also suggests quadrupling the tax-paid travellers' allowances and doubling the duty paid allowances on alcohol and tobacco in stages by 1992. Announcement of its technical proposals for fiscal control of exciseable goods has been deferred until August.

  The Commission's admission that zero rates are acceptable in principle is clearly a step forward and a vindication of our firm stance, and we welcome it; but we shall obviously need to clarify a number of elements, given our very clear commitments in this area. We also welcome the proposals on travellers' allowances, for which we have

  441
  been pressing. Other parts of the Commission's revised thinking, such as its continued desire for tax approximation, are less welcome; our position on that issue is unchanged.

  These proposals would require the unanimous assent of all member states.

  Tobacco (Taxation)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of taxation on tobacco products.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since 1979, the combined burden of duty and VAT on cigarettes has risen by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms. The level of duty in the United Kingdom remains the highest in the Economic Community, with the exception of Denmark.

  Alcohol Taxation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the annual revenue from alcohol taxation.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 14 April 1989 at columns 739–40.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) of 27 February,Official Report, column 27, how many people earn less than the respective point at which the tax benefit withdrawal level falls to 34 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  Reliable estimates are not available on the basis requested. Estimates of the number of full-time workers in receipt of income-related benefits and facing combined income tax and benefit withdrawal rates in excess of 40 per cent. were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 8 May at column 309. It is very unlikely that there are any full-time workers facing marginal deduction rates between 34 and 40 per cent.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Church-aided Schools
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last reviewed his Department's policy in respect of the funding of capital projects for Church-aided schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  The COGE (control of grant aided expenditure) working group was set up in 1986 to examine methods of improving the control of grant-aided expenditure for voluntary aided and special agreement schools. My right hon. Friend accepted its recommendations for improved procedures designed to secure more reliable predictions of capital expenditure needs at voluntary aided schools. The group concluded that the Department's priorities for the funding of voluntary school building projects were fair and just. Each year bids for work are carefully scrutinised to ensure that resources are targeted to those projects where needs are greatest.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of nursery places per 1,000 children in the shire counties; what is the average figure for the metropolitan districts; and what factors account for the difference between the figures.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on nursery places is not collected centrally. The number of pupils under five attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools in England in January 1988 per 1,000 of estimated population aged three and four in each non-metropolitan county and the overall average for metropolitan districts is given in the following table. A variety of factors may account for the differences between the figures including local policies on the education and care of the under-fives and the priority given by successive Governments to the most disadvantaged areas.

  Number of pupils under five in maintained nursery schools and classes per 1,000 children in the population1 January 1988

  Pupils

  Avon

  151

  Bedfordshire

  300

  Berkshire

  244

  Buckinghamshire

  121

  Cambridgeshire

  118

  Cheshire

  208

  Cleveland

  536

  Cornwall2

  141

  Cumbria

  212

  Derbyshire

  284

  Devon

  99

  Dorset

  60

  Durham

  387

  East Sussex

  70

  Essex

  59

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  49

  Hereford and Worcester

  61

  Hertfordshire

  297

  Humberside

  329

  Isle of Wight

  56

  Kent

  51

  Lancashire

  170

  Leicestershire

  216

  Lincolnshire

  75

  Norfolk

  52

  North Yorkshire

  179

  Northamptonshire

  176

  Northumberland

  262

  Nottinghamshire

  472

  Oxfordshire

  127

  Shropshire

  115

  Somerset

  8

  Staffordshire

  224

  Suffolk

  142

  Surrey

  114

  Warwickshire

  177

  West Sussex

  34

  Wiltshire

  21

  Total non-metropolitan counties

  167

  Total metropolitan districts

  374

  England

  239

  1 The estimated population aged three and four.

  2 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will take to ensure that students aged 18 years will not pay the full community charge
  443
  during the period between leaving school and entering higher or further education later in the year; and what effect this will have on student loans or grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  School leavers aged 18 will, after leaving school, remain exempt from community charge for as long as they are the subject of continuing entitlement to child benefit. Once that entitlement has expired, a person aged 18, and between school and higher or further education, will be liable to the full community charge, but will be able to claim rebate on the charge, provided that his income or resources (or, in the case of a couple, their joint income or resources) do not disqualify him from the rebate. Once enrolled full-time in further or higher education, that person will become eligible to a rebate of 80 per cent. of the full charge, and his previous status will be irrelevant to eligibility for grant.

  Association of University Teachers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Association of University Teachers; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not recently met the AUT, but we are in touch with it from time to time in the same way as we are in touch with a wide variety of bodies in order to keep abreast of developments.

  School Discipline
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in response to the Elton report on school discipline.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has to date received three letters commenting on the report of the committee of inquiry on discipline in schools, chaired by Lord Elton, which was published on 13 March.

  Teachers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of teachers in(a) Surrey and (b) England leave the profession within five years.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information is not available in respect of Surrey, nor nationally in the precise form requested. However it is estimated that amongst teachers trained in England and Wales who enter full-time service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England and Wales, 35 per cent. leave again within five years of qualification. About a fifth of these leavers re-enter service within the same five-year period, and many more do so subsequently.

  Examination Papers (Security)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance he gives to local education authorities and schools for the secure storage of public examination papers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for the examining bodies themselves to establish procedures governing the security 444
  of question papers and for individual schools and colleges acting as examination centres to ensure compliance with them.

  "Jean Monnet, Father of Europe"
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements have been made to distribute the video cassettes of the film entitled "Jean Monnet, Father of Europe" made available by the European Commission, among schools in the United Kingdom; and what proportion of these have been distributed to Hampshire and Havant, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The European Commission has not supplied copies of the video cassette to my Department for general distribution. A limited number of copies is available from

  The London Office of the Commission of the European Communities

  Jean Monnet House

  London

  SW1P 3AT

  Cancer Research
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he can give an estimate of the current value of research into the causes, prevention and treatment of all forms of cancer; and how much is attributable to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. I understand that, in 1987–88, the last financial year for which figures are available, the council's expenditure for research into the causes, prevention and treatment of all forms of cancer was £9·9 million. The corresponding figure for the Department of Health was £2·3 million.

  In addition, university departments and medical schools support a range of basic research from public funds, some of which will be relevant to cancer research.

  Information is not collected centrally on the whole range of organisations funding research into the causes,prevention and treatment of all forms of cancer. I understand from the latest edition of the handbook of the Association of Medical Research Charities that the research expenditure of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund for the year to 30 September 1987 was £41·8 million.

  Teacher Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in considering local management schemes, he will ensure that local education authorities retain as an exception from delegation, sufficient funds to meet the overhead costs of teacher exchange schemes.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 December 1988, at column 389.

ENERGY

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the provision in British Coal accounts for 1988–89 for coal mining subsidence damage costs;
  445
  (2) if amounts of moneys levied on coal production costs by British Coal to cover coal mining subsidence costs are carried over into the next financial year;

  (3) if amounts of moneys levied on coal production costs to cover coal mining subsidence damage costs are included in British Coal's global accounts year by year;

  (4) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield on 15 May, Official Report, column 102, if he will supply figures showing the financial costs of coal mining subsidence damage, externally to British Coal for each year since 1979, with a regional breakdown by coalfield area;

  (5) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield on 15 May, Official Report, column 102, if he will supply figures giving a breakdown of coal mining subsidence damage costs broken down into administration, repair, compensation, outside consultancies, and other relevant categories for each year since 1979, with a regional breakdown by coalfield area;

  (6) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield on 15 May, if he will supply figures showing the amounts of moneys levied on coal production costs by British Coal for each year since 1979, with a regional breakdown by coalfield area;

  (7) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield on 15 May, Official Report, column 102, if he will supply figures showing the provision in British Coal's accounts for coal mining subsidence damage costs for each year since 1979, with a regional breakdown by coalfield area;

  (8) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield on 15 May, what is the current total financial amount held by British Coal for the provision of repair, compensation and administration of coal mining subsidence damage.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Administration of the subsidence compensation and repair system, including making the necessary provisions in the accounts, is a matter for British Coal. Details on the level of provisions are given each year in the annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Details of the number and cost of claims settled, broken down by coalfield areas, are provided in British Coal's annual report to the Secretary of State for Energy, the first of which was placed in the House of Commons Library towards the end of last year. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member if any additional information is readily available.

  UKAEA (Regulation)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to relax the statutory regulation of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to enable it to exploit market opportunities more fully.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no plans to do so at present, although the matter is under discussion with the AEA.

  British Coal (Investment)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has considered the British Coal Corporation's initial response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the corporation's investment programme.

  Mr. Parkinson
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the MMC 446
  published its report on the investment programme of British Coal on 25 January. The corporation has now provided its initial response, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  The MMC rightly draws attention to British Coal's impressive achievement over the last five years in reducing costs and restructuring the industry, but identifies a need for a more cohesive and systematic approach towards its business planning, including fuller and more regular analysis of risk scenarios and contingency responses, greater use of modelling, and more local input on business prospects as the market evolves. I share the commission's view that these are priority areas for attention.

  The United Kingdom market for coal is becoming increasingly open, with greater price differentials both regionally and as between market sectors. This makes it particularly important to identify, and base business decisions upon, the true profitability of individual coal flows, so that management at all levels can respond promptly and concertedly to the impact of market developments on profitability. Exposure to loss-making business must be reduced if the corporation is to achieve its objective of maximising profitability. I accordingly welcome the corporation's intention to continue to adapt its business planning systems and organisation to meet changing circumstances, and I expect the detailed steps taken under each of the commission's recommendations to be fully set out in the corporation's further responses to the MMC report. My recent appointment of a second deputy chairman should help to strengthen the corporation's efforts in this direction over the coming year.

  The commission concluded that British Coal's controls over capital investment are generally good, and expressed confidence that the corporation's investment programme is achieving a rate of return of at least 5 per cent. Since its report was published, the Government have increased the required rate of return to 8 per cent, and I will be considering with British Coal over the next 12 months the implications of this for the test discount rates for individual categories of expenditure.

  I do not share the commission's view that the Asfordby project was never viable; as British Coal points out, an independent review in July 1983 suggested that at that stage an acceptable rate of return could be achieved. But I agree that such large projects, particularly where lead times and payback periods are long, tend to be financially more risky than many other types of expenditure, and that this requires to be fully recognised in the criteria for initial investment appraisal. This should minimise the risk of future projects being 'piece-mealed through time'; as regards Asfordby itself, it is important that the substantial balance of the expenditure still uncommitted should show a robust financial return. I also share the commission's view that, in general, conditional approval should not be given in advance of a sound financial prospectus.

  I welcome British Coal's acceptance of the need to assess the system effect of large projects involving new capacity; as the commission recognises, however, even relatively small amounts of new capacity can have a significant effect in localised or special quality markets. I also welcome the importance attached by both the commission and British Coal to the spread of six-day operations and other more flexible working patterns.

  I share the commission's view that new medium-term financial objectives need to be agreed between the corporation and Government, but I recognise that these

  447
  cannot be sensibly finalised ahead of the coming negotiations with National Power and Power Gen on the terms of coal supply beyond January 1990. In the meantime the external financing path to 1991–92 which I announced to the House on 6 February provides a provisional basis for forward planning.

  I am anxious that early progress should be made on this agenda. Under the normal arrangements for the follow-up to M MC recommendations arising from section 11 inquiries, British Coal will be reporting to me after one and three years on progress achieved in implementing the recommendations. I shall lay its report before the House next spring.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the meeting of the European Community's Council of Energy Ministers on 11 May.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I represented my right hon. Friend at the Council.

  The Council decided on a programme for improving the efficiency of electricity use and approved recommendations aimed at reducing any distortions of competition between oil refineries resulting from differences in environmental protection standards. It agreed conclusions setting a framework for detailed discussions of Thermie, a proposed new scheme for demonstrating and disseminating new technology in the energy sector, including efficient use of energy; the existing schemes are due to finish at the end of this year. Eleven member states, including the United Kingdom, similarly agreed a framework for discussing improvements in energy price transparency. No conclusions were reached in a discussion on trade between integrated electricity systems, during which I stressed the importance of consumer choice and competition.

  Arrangements will be made for the Energy Council to convey its opinion to the Internal Market Council before any decisions are taken on the energy aspects of the Commission's proposals on procurement in the energy, water and transport sectors.

  In an inconclusive discussion of the 1975 directive controlling the use of gas for generating electricity, the United Kingdom strongly urged its repeal, particularly on environmental grounds, but also in the interests of competition, exploration and efficiency. The Commission was unwilling to propose repeal before the next review of the Community's energy objectives, but would do so if it were shown that the directive restricted the development of the gas industry.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population have taken out personal pensions since the reform of pension arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since July 1988, around 3 million people have taken out a personal pension: this is equivalent to about 11 per cent. of the working population.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the take up of family credit as a percentage of total family credit budgets for each of the DSS offices in Glasgow.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Family credit is dealt with centrally, and expenditure estimates are made for Great Britain as a whole. Similarly, information about percentage take up rates can be obtained only for Great Britain, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

  At the beginning of April 1989, the number of families receiving family credit who were living in the areas covered by each of the local social security offices in Glasgow at the time the award was made was as follows:

  Number

  Glasgow (Anniesland)

  646

  Glasgow (Bridgeton)

  143

  Glasgow (City)

  341

  Glasgow (Craigton)

  403

  Glasgow (Cumbernauld)

  600

  Glasgow (Laurieston)

  367

  Glasgow (Maryhill)

  336

  Glasgow (Parkhead)

  575

  Glasgow (Partick)

  20

  Glasgow (Provan)

  875

  Glasgow (Rutherglen)

  658

  Glasgow (South Side)

  516

  Glasgow (Springburn)

  275

  Transitional Protection
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants' claims for transitional protection failed, in total and as a percentage of the whole.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At 18 May 1989, a total of 474,974 applications for housing benefit transitional payments had been received. Of these 446,035 had been assessed and in 247,623 cases (52 per cent. of all applications) no benefit was payable. Of the cases outstanding the majority are awaiting the return of inquiry forms about housing benefit details from local authorities.

  Community Care Grants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money is being allocated for the national advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the national consultancy report on which the forthcoming advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants has been based;

  (3) how its forthcoming national advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants is being conducted; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will place in the Library the draft formats of any posters, leaflets, and so on relating to the forthcoming advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants;

  (5) if he will be making available additional funds to advice agencies during the forthcoming advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants;

  (6) when the national advertising campaign on social fund community care grants is starting;
  449
  (7) if he will make available additional funds by virtue of his power under section 32(6) of the Social Security Act 1986 in order to meet demand generated by the forthcoming advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants in excess of Department of Social Security local office budget profiles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to mount a national advertising campaign in respect of social fund community care grants and we are not aware of any national consultancy report on this subject.

  We are, however, intending to produce additional information material on the social fund, including community care grants, which will be aimed at potential applicants. Leaflet SB16 "A guide to the Social Fund" is also being revised to take account of forthcoming changes to the social fund manual guidance on community care grants. This new information material should be available to the public this summer. The costs will be met from within the Department's budget for leaflets. We do not think that it would be helpful to lay draft copies in the Library, but we shall ensure that copies of the final versions are made available.

  Our intention is to provide both potential applicants and advice agencies with better information about the scheme than they have at present. There is therefore no need for additional funds to be made available to advice agencies as a result of this initiative, nor do we intend to increase the community care grants budget allocation for the current year.

  Resettlement Units Executive Agency
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to establish the resettlement units executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  The resettlement units executive agency will tomorrow become the first part of the Department of Social Security to achieve agency status. Its main aim is to provide help and assistance to a group of people who are among the most disadvantaged. There are two key tasks: first, to manage the existing DSS units efficiently and effectively, examining how to get the best out of the resources available; secondly, to implement the policy set out by the Government in 1985 that the needs of these people, and in particular their prospects for a more settled way of life, could more appropriately be met in accommodation that is locally run and administered by local authorities and by voluntary organisations rather than in large centrally run institutions.

  The units provide 1,836 beds, 670 of which are in London, for single homeless people. In addition to providing food and shelter, the units seek to encourage users to adopt a more settled way of life and to help them to find accommodation of their own.

  The agency will be a more effective way of carrying out that work. Efficiency targets have been set, but in accordance with the promises made by the Government in 1985 all efficiency savings will be retained by the agency. A more clearly defined timetable for taking forward the replacement programme will be developed. The new concept of a single agency budget, and the flexibilities given within that, will facilitate the work of the chief executive in deploying all the resources available in the best interests of the users of resettlement accommodation.
  450
  Copies of the agency framework document and of the initial set of performance targets, have been placed in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Vale of Glamorgan
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she plans to make an official visit to the Vale of Glamorgan.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she proposes to make an official visit to Romania.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Collisions at Sea
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to minimise the risk of collisions between fishing vessels and submarines.

  The Prime Minister
  The Royal Navy already takes the greatest care to ensure that the risk of collisions between submarines and fishing vessels or their gear is very low. I understand that the hon. Member recently visited the Clyde with a group of Members from this House and that some suggestions were made for technical improvements to fishing vessels to reduce the risk further. These suggestions will, of course, be considered on their merits.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has received concerning the rate of destruction of the world's forests for each of the past 20 years; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Data on the rate of destruction of the world's forests are not available on an annual basis. The latest internationally comparable figures were published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1982 and relate to tropical forests during the period 1976–1980. Annual deforestation rates for all tropical closed forests by region and worldwide were:

  Tropical closed forest

  Area lost(Millions of hectares/year)

  Per cent. of total area

  Africa

  1·33

  0·61

  Asia, Pacific

  1·82

  0·59

  Latin America

  4·12

  0·61

  Total

  7·27

  0·61

  Comparable data for earlier periods are not available. The FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme will make a second forest resources assessment in 1990.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the circumstances in which Her Majesty's Government would order the firing of nuclear weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Broadleaved Woodland
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister why thre is no system of felling licences to protect Northern Ireland's broadleaved woodlands; if she will extend the United Kingdom system of felling licences to Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1970 White Paper "Forestry in Northern Ireland" stated that the Government felt that there was no longer the need for restrictive legislation on the felling of trees and proposed that the relevant legislation be repealed. This was done in 1982. There are no proposals to reintroduce felling licences in Northern Ireland. The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland has powers to make an order (known as a tree preservation order) to prohibit the cutting down of trees.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

  Gulf and Gulf of Oman (Award)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister whether an award is to be made to members of the armed forces and civilians who were engaged in recent operations in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

  The Prime Minister
  In recognition of service and with special regard to the dangers and hardships which accompanied duty there, for personnel who served in vessels of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the award of the General Service Medal 1962 with "Gulf-clasp. The award covers operations in the Gulf of Oman between 17 November 1986 and 31 October 1988 and continuing mine 452
  counter-measures operations in the Gulf from 1 November 1988 until 28 February 1989. A Command Paper (Cm. 699) which, inter alia, sets out the criteria of eligibility, is being laid before the House today.

WALES

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Milk Marketing Board about the use of bovine somatotropin on dairy herds in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Countryside (Employment)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has assessed the implications of his agricultural policies on employment in the countryside in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The level of employment on agricultural holdings in Wales in 1988 was marginally higher than in 1983. Grants and subsidies paid to Welsh farmers in 1988 are provisionally estimated to have amounted to £106 million, significantly contributing both directly and indirectly to rural employment.

  Nurses (Regrading)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (I) if he will make a statement concerning nurses' regrading in Wales;

  (2) how many nurses are involved in regrading in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on 20 March 1989 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office at column 435. Some 24,787 posts were involved.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to release empty property belonging to his Department for use by homeless people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office currently holds some 150 dwellings. Where practical, they are used for letting or sale to those in need.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on homelessness in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  1 am concerned as long as there are any families in Wales without permanent homes. That is why the Government have made such a substantial investment in recent years in measures to increase the supply of housing available. We have also encouraged local authorities to make better use of their stock and reduce the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Singleton Casualty Unit
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to complete the review of the first
  453
  year's work of the Singleton casualty unit since it restored a 24-hour service; and when would be an appropriate date to meet a further deputation led by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West to discuss the future development of the unit.

  Mr. Grist
  The first year of operation of the 24-hour service at the Singleton minor casualty unit will end at the beginning of June. I would therefore expect the review of its work to end by the autumn. If the right hon. Gentleman contacts my office, I shall be happy to arrange a meeting with a deputation led by him.

  Mumbles Railway
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which grant systems are available for a project to reopen the Mumbles railway in Swansea; what are their criteria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Welsh Office officials have not been informed of any firm proposal to reopen the Mumbles railway. Without precise details, we cannot make a statement.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for Wales the number of(a) acute beds and (b) non-acute beds available since 1979 for each health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 15 May 1989 at column 38.

  Afforestation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the Welsh water authority's attitude towards the proposals to afforest Bara Ceirch and Bwlch-y-Garreg in the Cambrian mountains; and what provisions have been made for the timing of this afforestation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In the light of objections raised by the Welsh water authority to the afforestation proposals for these two sites, the applicants were informed by the Forestry Commission that grant approval would depend on a suitable liming regime being agreed with the water authority. Such an agreement has not so far proved possible.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for class XVII, votes 5, 8 and 10 in 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 5 will be increased by £100,000, from £273,611,000 to £273,711,000; the cash limit for class XVII, vote 8 will be increased by £6,800,000, from £823,710,000 to £830,510,000; and the cash limit for class XVII, vote 10 will be increased by £47,000, from £1,049,000,000 to £1,049,047,000.

  The increases for class XVII, votes 5 and 8 follow the decision to implement the recommendations of the review
  454
  bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 February 1989. These increases will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase for class XVII, vote 10 is in respect of an adjustment to a local authority's prior year entitlement to block grant. Expenditure on this vote is not classed as direct public expenditure.

  Community Energy Action
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that adequate numbers of operatives and trainees are available to undertake community energy action work in draughtproofing and loft insulation in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: A package of measures was announced on 10 February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to help community insulation projects under employment training. Projects which are not suitable for ET might be suitable for providing voluntary work for people who have finished employment training as a means of practising their skills until they find work.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the contribution made to the well-being of elderly people and other vulnerable people in Wales by programmes of community energy action work including draughtproofing and loft insulation in each of the last 10 years; and what targets he intends to set for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: It is essentially a matter for the placement providers to consider the contribution their projects will make to the well-being of the elderly and other vulnerable people in their areas. The elderly will benefit from recent changes to the homes insulation scheme to improve loft insulation and the installation of thermal insulation under the new home improvement grant arrangements.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the number of trainees undertaking community energy action work in draughtproofing and loft insulation to equal the number so engaged under the community programme in April 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: It is not possible to compare the numbers on community programme with employment training. Their aims are fundamentally different. Whilst CP provided the long-term unemployed with work experience on projects that benefited the community, ET aims to provide individuals with the skills to meet their own training needs and the needs of the local labour market.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trainees were employed on community energy action work such as draughtproofing and loft insulation in each district council area in Wales in April 1988 under the community programme; and how many were employed under employment training in April 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Figures for district council areas are not available. The following refer to Training Agency area office regions:
  455

  Community Programme Nos. of participants April 1988

  Employment Training Nos. of trainees April 1989

  Wrexham AO(Clwyd, Gwynedd and Powys)

  173

  130

  Cardiff AO (Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan)

  346

  102

  Swansea AO (West Glamorgan and Dyfed)

  149

  62

  Newport AO(Gwent)

  143

  47

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  North-South Campaign
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representatives who attended the Council of Europe's European public campaign on north-south interdependence and solidarity colloquy, interdependence and cultural development, held in Lisbon, Portugal from 7 to 8 April 1988; and if he will show in his answer(a) what country and (b) what organisation these representatives were from.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  From the information available to me, I understand that the colloquy was attended by more than 100 participants and observers from a number of countries. These included the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, the President of the Republic of Portugal, representatives from 17 developing countries and from a variety of international organisations, churches and non-governmental organisations. I have asked the Council of Europe secretariat for a full list which I shall forward to the hon. Member in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Edward Zolofarevsky
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Russians about the continued failure to grant an exit visa to Edward Boris Zolofarevsky of Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State raised this case with Mr. Shevardnadze in April. We shall continue to press the Soviet authorities until Mr. Zolofarevsky is allowed to leave the USSR.

  Abduction
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received during the present Parliament about the abduction and taking abroad by their foreign-born fathers of the children of United Kingdom citizen mothers; what information he has of the numbers of such children and the countries where they are now believed to reside; and if he will make a statement.
  456
  Mr. Eggar
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's interest in cases involving the abduction and taking abroad of children stems from the child's British nationality, irrespective of the nationality or place of birth of its parents. Some of the information requested by my hon. Friend is not therefore available—for example, the place of birth of fathers or the nationality of mothers.

  The information which can be provided is not immediately available, and a further reply will be given to my hon. Friend in due course.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations from any organisation about the denial of human rights in the Punjab, India; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations received include a report forwarded by the hon. Member, and the matter was the subject of an Adjournment debate in the House on 11 November 1988.

  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said on that occasion, the Government have always made clear their views on the need for all Governments to respect human rights. We must, however, recognise that the democratic Government of India faces a violent challenge to the rule of law from ruthless terrorists. The Indian Government none the less announced measures in March aimed at improving the situation in the Punjab.

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of public holidays which now exist in the member states of the Economic Community.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The list is as follows:

  Days

  Belgium

  10

  Denmark

  10

  Federal Republic of Germany

  10

  France

  11

  Greece

  11

  Italy

  111

  Luxembourg

  12

  The Netherlands

  8

  Portugal

  13

  Republic of Ireland

  8

  Spain

  212

  1 plus 2 falling on Sundays.

  2 plus I discretionary day.

  US Judiciary Subcommittee (Report)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to obtain from the United States Senate for his departmental library the report from the United States judiciary subcommittee on Separation of Powers on Senate Bill 158 of the 97th Congress; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office library purchases United States Committee reports only if their subject is of interest to the FCO.

  Pornography (United States)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the legislation passed by various American States in 1988 to deal with the so-called dial-a-porn problem.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Library normally obtains only such copies of overseas legislation, other than that of the Commonwealth, as is necessary for day-to-day business.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Private Health Screening
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to control the use of direct mailing advertisements for private health screening services.

  Mr. Forth
  Direct mail advertisements, including those for private health screening services, are covered by the British code of advertising practice, which is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority.

  False statements in advertisements are covered by the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 enable the Director General of Fair Trading to seek a court injunction to prevent the publication of a misleading advertisement, where other means of control have failed. I have no plans to introduce any further controls.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many premium rate telephone message and one-on-one services were carried by each of the operators licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984 for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  The telecommunications regime does not oblige individual service providers to register such services. These figures are not, therefore, available. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on chatline and message services does, however, provide some indications of the size of the premium rate services area. Its report indicated that some 120 service providers were in business, operating about 11,000 lines. A copy of this MMC report is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many monitoring staff are employed by the independent committee for the supervision of standards of telephone information services; and how many calls they have monitored in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  These are matters for the independent committee for the supervision of standards of telephone information services. I understand that the committee is taking an increasingly active role in the monitoring of premium services, but the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman, Louis Blom-Cooper QC, ICSTIS, 67–69 Whitfield Street, London W1P 5RL to request the details he seeks.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the documents in which he 458
  he has given directions to the Director General of Telecommunications under section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1984; and if he will place them in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has given no directions under section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Regional Assistance (Corby)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many projects, and at what cost, have been supplied by regional assistance in the Corby development area in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  Original regional development grant (RDG I)1 2

  Payments

  £ million

  1979–80

  —

  1980–81

  0·21

  1981–82

  2·68

  1982–83

  6·82

  1983–84

  6·50

  1984–85

  2·59

  1985–86

  1·81

  1986–87

  3·22

  1987–88

  2·11

  1988–89

  1·95

  1 Scheme was not project based

  2 Only payments of over £25,000 included up to 1983–84

  Revised regional development grant (RDG II)1

  £ million

  Approvals

  Payments

  Number of Projects

  1985–86

  10·03

  1·5

  191

  1986–87

  24·23

  4·7

  207

  1987–88

  23·13

  6·4

  224

  1988–89

  15·18

  7·3

  171

  1Scheme introduced November 1984 and terminated March 1988

  Regional selective assistance

  £ million

  Offers

  Payments

  Number of Projects

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1·05

  0·03

  6

  1981–82

  3·44

  0·31

  31

  1982–83

  6·49

  1·43

  57

  1983–84

  6·26

  4·47

  61

  1984–85

  2·09

  3·45

  26

  1985–86

  1·81

  2·89

  16

  1986–87

  1·10

  1·58

  11

  1987–88

  0·38

  0·96

  11

  1988–89

  0·75

  0·37

  5

  Regional enterprise grants1

  £ million

  Offers

  Payments

  Number of Projects

  1988–89

  0·36

  0·01

  32

  1 Scheme introduced March 1988

  Polyester Silk Plants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by year for the last 10 years the
  459
  value in current prices of polyester silk plants made in the United Kingdom; and how many companies at the latest date for which he has figures are currently producing this product in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures are not available.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–15, concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide comparable figures for motor cars; and if he will add figures for 1973 and for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Motor vehicles1

  Gross output

  Exports

  £ billion

  £ billion

  1979

  7·2

  1·5

  1 Activity Heading 3510 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980.

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–15, concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide comparable figures for electrical and electronic engineering products; and if he will add figures for 1973 and for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Electrical and electronic engineering1

  Gross output

  Exports

  £ billion

  £ billion

  1979

  11·5

  3·2

  1 Class 34 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980.

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–15, concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide comparable figures for mechanical engineering products; and if he will add figures for 1973 and for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Mechanical engineering1

  Gross output

  Exports

  £ billion

  £ billion

  1979

  18·0

  6·1

  1 Class 32 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980.

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  Inward investment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total number of inward investment projects in each of the standard regions and Wales for each of the years 1979 to 1988, inclusive.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 Mar 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 16 May, at columns 115–16.

  EC Regional Fund
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the precise areas which will now benefit from the EEC regional fund; and if the decision on the boundaries and size of the individual allocations will be made by his Department or by the European Commission.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the precise areas which will now benefit from the EEC regional fund; and if the decision on the boundaries and size of the individual allocations will be made by his Department or by the European Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The following areas of the United Kingdom have been designated for eligibility for the European regional development fund (ERDF) with effect from 1 January 1989. Northern Ireland was designated by the Council of the European Communities in its regulation (EEC) 2052/88 of 24 June 1988. The remainder were designated by the Commission, in pursuance of that regulation, on 22 March and 10 May 1989:
  Northern Ireland;
  The assisted areas of Great Britain, except: Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye, Corby, Kidderminster and Whitby travel-to-work areas, and parts of Birmingham, Bridgend, Cardiff, Coventry and Hinckley, Dudley and Sandwell and Sheffield TTWAs;
  The remainder of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and Development Board for Rural Wales areas;
  The remainder of Greater Manchester; Nottingham City (UPA); and the following TTWAs: Alnwick and Amble, Burnley, Castleford and Pontefract, Chesterfield, Goole and Selby (part), Mansfield, Pendle, Retford, Stirling (part), Wakefield and Dewsbury, Whitehaven and Worksop.

  Both hon. Members' constituencies (Bassetlaw, and Pontefract and Castleford) are thus eligible in their entirety.

  The excluded parts of Bridgend, Cardiff and Sheffield TTWAs remain eligible under transitional provisions, at least for the period of ERDF programmes which relate to them. Camarthen and Llandeilo TTWAs are also now eligible in principle; but the terms of the previous ERDF regulation, which still apply transitionally in the case, provide for ERDF grants in non-nationally aided areas only exceptionally. Further areas may become eligible for limited grants under special programmes—Resider (steel areas), Renaval (shipbuilding areas) and others that may be adopted by the Commission.

  The allocation of grants is determined by the Commission upon application by the Government. Indicative financial plans for ERDF assistance in the three years 1989–91 are to be contained in Community support framework documents, to be established by the Commission in agreement with the Government by the autumn of 1989 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Europe: Open for Business Campaign
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all outside bodies, consultancies and firms who have received payments for work connected with the Europe: Open for Business campaign; and how they were appointed.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: The following are the main contractors used on the Europe open for business campaign. The list includes all prime contractors (but not their subcontractors) employed by DTI and the Central Office of Information where the work involved had a value of at least £5,000. Firms and others contracted by DTI direct are denoted by an asterisk (*); those providing services via COI are marked thus(†).

  ABC Graphics Ltd.†

  Atlas Photography Limited†

  Avon Exhibitions Bristol Ltd.†

  Graham Bannock and Partners*

  Birmingham Metropole Hotel†

  Ian Blackman†

  Vic Brent†

  British Airways plc†

  British Telecom†

  Leo Burnett†

  Capital TV Facilities plc†

  Carlton Design†

  Central Office of Information*

  Christian Brann Ltd.†

  Clip Exhibitions and Display Systems†

  Creative Scene*

  Crown Television Productions Ltd.†

  D'Arcy Masius Benton and Bowles†

  Terence Donovan Production Ltd.†

  Dun and Bradstreet Ltd.†

  Durrants*

  Edit Art Post Production†

  FT Business Information†

  Griffin Factors Ltd.†

  Grundy and Northedge Design*

  Peter Hobday Associates Ltd.†

  HMSO*†

  Hudson Payne and Iddiols†

  ITN†

  Vincent Kane†

  Mike Kaufman (post production) Ltd.†

  Leith's Good Food Ltd.†

  London Colour Copy Centre*

  Look Hear†

  MAS Research Marketing†

  Peter Matthews Displays Ltd.†

  Moore and Mathes*

  Multimark Ltd.†

  One Point Five Ltd.†

  Parkdine Ltd.†

  Pearl and Dean Publicity Ltd.*

  Peat Marwick McLintock*

  Portland Outdoor Advertising Ltd.†

  Post Office†

  Property Services Agency*

  Research Surveys of Great Britain†

  Rex Pictures Ltd.†

  Adrian Rowbotham Films†

  S. D. Systems Ltd.†

  Security Pacific Business†

  Soundset Ltd.†

  Stag Services (Employment) Ltd.†

  Sheila Stirrat†

  David Suchet†

  Teledata Ltd.†

  Anna Valley Displays†

  Video Arts Ltd.*†

  Video Tape Recording Pic†

  WCRS Mathews Marcantonio Ltd.†

  Richard Whiteley†

  Yound & Rubicam Ltd.†

DEFENCE

  Computer Language (ADA)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue a complete list of projects using the mandatory computer programme language Ada; if he will give the Ada specific costs involved in those projects; and whether the use of Ada has helped to control software development and maintenance costs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The adoption of Ada as MOD's preferred language for new operational software, together with improvements in the management of those projects which have a large and complex software content, is helping to control the costs of software development and maintenance.

  We do not insist inflexibly on the use of Ada. There will be particular circumstances where Ada cannot be used or where an alternative approach might offer better value for money. Information concerning those projects which do use Ada, and the Ada specific costs involved in these projects, is not held centrally. To obtain that information would require a special survey, and would incur disproportionate cost.

  Buccaneer
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects agreement on the air staff requirement for the Buccaneer replacement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Initial studies into possible replacement options are currently in hand. It is too early to say when a staff requirement is likely to be agreed.

  Nimrod
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects agreement on the air staff requirement for the Nimrod MR2 replacement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the effects of corrosion on the fatigue lives of the RAF Nimrod maritime reconnaissance fleet.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The fatigue life of an airframe is affected by a number of factors, of which corrosion is only one. In the case of the Nimrod MR2, it is too early to assess the effect of corrosion on the aircraft's fatigue life, but we expect the Nimrod to give many more years of useful service. It will be some time before a staff requirement for a replacement aircraft needs to be agreed.

  Harrier
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier GR5 squadrons will be based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  One.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Harrier GR/7 to enter service with the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the early 1990s.

  RAF Pilots
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of hours flown by RAF fast jet pilots per month.
  463
  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is classified.

  Low-Flying Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, dates and locations of all low-flying exercises conducted since 6 November 1987, advance notice of which was given to hon. Members in affected constituencies.

  Mr. Neubert
  Advance notice of the following exercises has been given to hon. Members whose constituencies were likely to experience unusual low-flying activity:

  Exercise Name

  Exercise Dates

  Exercise Location

  1988

  Key Lift 88

  5–13 March

  North Yorkshire

  Mallet Blow 88/1

  14–18 March

  Northern England/Borders

  Red Lanyard

  9–12 April

  Many areas with centre on Salisbury Plain

  Elder Forest 88

  18–21 April

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/ Northern England/Eastern Scotland

  Hammer 88/1

  10 May

  Northern England/Southern Scotland

  OSEX 15

  16–20 May

  Wales

  Roaring Lion

  20–26 May

  Many areas with centre on Northumberland

  Central

  6 June

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/

  Enterprise

  Northern England/Eastern Scotland

  Fast Buzzard

  13–24 July

  Many areas with centre on Salisbury Plain

  Mallet Blow 88/2

  25–29 July

  Northern England/Borders

  Green Lanyard

  1–8 October

  Many areas with centre on South West Wales

  Elder Joust 881

  4–6 October

  East Anglia/Lincolnshire/ North eastern England/ South eastern Scotland

  Hammer 88/2

  11 October

  East Anglia/Northern England/ Southern Scotland

  1989

  Red Lanyard

  17–23 February

  Many areas with centre on Norfolk

  Mallet Blow 89/1

  3–7 April

  Northern England/Borders

  Salty Hammer 892

  9 May

  Northern England/Southern Scotland

  Equipment Trial

  25 April–19 May

  Northern England/Borders

  OSEX 163

  10–19 May

  Wales

  Notes:

  1 Formerly called Exercise Priory.

  2 Formerly called Exercise Hammer.

  3 Including Highland Cardinal work-up exercise.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates of covert surveys of low flying by the RAF police since 25 September 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him in response to his similar question on 16 March 1989, at column 241. Since 22 February covert monitoring of low-flying activity has additionally been conducted at the following locations over the periods stated:

  25–27 April

  Liskeard

  2–4 May

  Gloucester

  8–11 May

  Blencarn

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what maximum speed and minimum height will be permitted during mock interception manoeuvres and run-ups to simulated targets, for aircraft participating in the OSEX 16 exercise.
  464
  Mr. Neubert
  The normal height and speed regulations for low flying in the United Kingdom will apply to aircraft participating in OSEX 16.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of the 100 ft low-flying area in central Wales during(a) Exercise Highland Cardinal and (b) Exercise OSEX 16.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties will be carried out during exercises Highland Cardinal and OSEX 16.

  Mr. Neubert
  A maximum of 40 low-level sorties daily are planned for Exercise Highland Cardinal and a maximum of 120 daily for Exercise OSEX 16.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South of 16 May,Official Report, column 140, he will outline in the Official Report the considerable differences in the situations pertaining to British and United States of America nuclear tests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The temporal and special variations of the potential radiation hazards that may arise from nuclear tests depend, in a complex manner, on various factors, including device type and disposition, topography of the location, meteorological conditions and the test objectives. The doses of radiation received by individuals depend on the position and movement of individuals relative to the hazards, making due allowance for any protective measures taken. It is thus inevitable that the situations pertaining to United Kingdom and United States were considerably different.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to seek support of the Governments of the United States and France to introduce an amendment to the London dumping convention to allow the sea dumping of military radioactive waste arising, including submarine hulls.

  Mr Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: The London dumping convention allows the disposal at sea of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste, in accordance with internationally agreed guidelines and procedures, although a non-binding moratorium has been in place since 1983. The Government have decided not to resume sea-disposal of drummed radioactive waste, including waste of military origin. None the less, the Government intend to keep open this option for large items arising from decommissioning operations, although they have taken no decisions about how redundant nuclear submarines will be disposed of.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Income Support
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children were in families on income support in 1988–89.
  465
  Mr. Needham
  The appropriate analysis of the income support caseload has not yet been completed.I shall let the hon. Member have the information as soon as it is available

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

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

  Year

  Northern Ireland

  Eastern Board

  Northern Board

  Southern Board

  Western Board

  Total acute beds available

  1979

  7,173

  4,198

  1,049

  998

  928

  1980

  7,167

  4,222

  1,056

  974

  915

  1981

  7,074

  4,199

  1,013

  963

  899

  19821

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  7,036

  4,206

  979

  973

  878

  1984

  6,973

  4,140

  1,000

  977

  856

  1985

  6,997

  4,090

  1,051

  1,001

  855

  1986

  6,506

  3,652

  1,023

  984

  847

  1987

  6,221

  3,520

  989

  895

  817

  Total non-acute beds

  1979

  9,953

  4,532

  1,406

  1,663

  2,352

  1980

  9,894

  4,547

  1,417

  1,632

  2,298

  1981

  9,942

  4,605

  1,472

  1,622

  2,243

  19821

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  9,943

  4,710

  1,377

  1,633

  2,223

  1984

  9,744

  4,485

  1,444

  1,630

  2,185

  1985

  9,601

  4,354

  1,457

  1,608

  2,182

  1986

  9,457

  4,345

  1,434

  1,572

  2,106

  1987

  9,191

  4,208

  1,384

  1,537

  2,062

  Total beds available

  1979

  17,126

  8,730

  2,433

  2,661

  3,280

  1980

  17,061

  8,769

  2,473

  2,606

  3,213

  1981

  17,016

  8,804

  2,485

  2,585

  3,142

  19821

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  16,979

  8,916

  2,356

  2,606

  3,101

  1984

  16,717

  8,625

  2,444

  2,607

  3,041

  1985

  16,598

  8,444

  2,508

  2,609

  3,037

  1986

  15,963

  7,997

  2,457

  2,556

  2,953

  1987

  15,412

  7,728

  2,373

  2,432

  2,879

  1 Not available due to industrial action.

  1988 figures are not yet available.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his statement in the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,Official Report, 15 February, column 16, concerning the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, whether written consents

  Single payments and supplementary benefit caseloads for the period 18 December 1986 to 28 July 1987

  Single payments

  Supplementary benefit caseloads at1

  Social Security office

  Number

  £

  10 February 1987

  8 May 1987

  28 July 1987

  Andersonstown

  7,504

  899,549·64

  7,775

  7,600

  7,754

  Antrim

  9,163

  419,947·62

  5,597

  5,448

  5,487

  Armagh

  3,426

  307,000·02

  4,941

  4,814

  5,078

  Ballymena

  3,984

  356,515·64

  6,263

  5,971

  6,547

  Ballymoney

  3,635

  255,552·61

  4,363

  4,552

  4,358

  Ballynahinch

  476

  34,043·00

  1,418

  1,463

  1,502

  Banbridge

  1,961

  145,245·38

  3,378

  3,268

  3,358

  Bangor

  2,279

  155,179·84

  4,520

  4,519

  4,848

  Carrickfergus

  2,520

  152,719·20

  3,075

  3,021

  3,078

  Coleraine

  5,982

  409,362·68

  6,220

  5,973

  6,066

  466
  under that order from the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) to owners or occupiers of areas of special scientific interest for the carrying out of notifiable operations on such land will specify the exact nature of the consented operation, its limits in time and area, and such other conditions as may be deemed appropriate.

  Mr. Needham
  Written consents issued to owners or occupiers of land with within areas of special scientific interest under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will specify the exact nature of the consented operations and, where relevant, any limits in time and area. Consents will also specify such other conditions as may be deemed appropriate.

  There will be no difference in the form of consents issued under this order from those issued under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his statement in the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,Official Report, 15 February, column 16, whether he has now considered further the matter of progress in designing special protection areas in Northern Ireland under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, and if he will make a statement on measures to speed up the process.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has re-examined the procedures for the designation of special protection areas under the terms of EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds. While priority is being given to the declaration of areas of special scientific interest under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, where ASSIs are also potential SPAs, the Department will proceed towards SPA designation as soon as is practicable after such ASSI declarations have been confirmed.

  It is expected that a small number of SPAs will be designated under the above arrangements during the next two years.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the distribution of single payments and caseloads at social security offices during the period 16 December 1986 to 28 July 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: The information is set out in the table.
  467

  Single payments

  Supplementary benefit caseloads at1

  Social Security office

  Number

  £

  10 February 1987

  8 May 1987

  28 July 1987

  Cookstown

  2,260

  250,337·70

  3,559

  3,444

  3,586

  Corporation Street

  9,486

  1,051,663·53

  12,359

  12,159

  12,596

  Downpatrick

  3,086

  155,807·16

  2,300

  2,458

  2,797

  Dungannon

  4,821

  386,850·35

  5,965

  5,873

  6,137

  Enniskillen

  2,895

  261,338·69

  8,266

  8,290

  8,490

  Falls

  9,884

  727,109·01

  9,485

  9,034

  9,390

  Holywood Road

  6,928

  453,436·27

  9,018

  8,783

  9,286

  Kilkeel

  676

  51,275·48

  1,437

  1,440

  1,480

  Knockbreda

  2,760

  225,072·52

  6,357

  6,223

  6,657

  Larne

  3,052

  151,624·30

  2,888

  2,799

  2,965

  Limavady

  2,084

  127,109·04

  3,202

  3,136

  3,227

  Lisburn

  7,108

  728,054·03

  6,540

  6,628

  6,694

  Londonderry

  11,470

  1,118,808·56

  14,786

  14,818

  15,901

  Lurgan

  5,854

  856,702·31

  5,806

  5,688

  6,100

  Magherafelt

  3,027

  425,225·75

  5,080

  5,175

  5,289

  Newcastle

  1,339

  67,989·42

  1,888

  1,861

  1,941

  Newry

  5,010

  669,516·30

  9,600

  9,457

  9,748

  Newtownabbey

  4,840

  247,413·38

  5,774

  5,415

  5,941

  Newtownards

  1,702

  123,481·10

  3,840

  3,986

  3,910

  Omagh

  3,783

  378,413·86

  5,577

  5,530

  6,039

  Portadown

  2,268

  194,414·67

  3,837

  3,728

  3,992

  Shaftesbury Squar

  6,465

  565,737·83

  6,662

  6,896

  8,152

  Shankill

  4,220

  365,981·69

  5,367

  5,209

  5,328

  Strabane

  5,193

  381,830·67

  6,045

  6,121

  6,039

  Total

  151,141

  13,100,309·25

  193,183

  190,780

  199,761

  1 During the period in question there were three counts of the caseload as shown·

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the total numbers in receipt of(a) mobility allowance (b) attendance allowance and (c) invalid care allowance and to indicate the total number of claims received for each allowance in each of the past five years indicating the number of claims from each year which were successful.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: The total numbers of people in Northern Ireland in receipt of mobility allowance, attendance allowance and invalid care allowance at the latest date for which information is available are 13,530, 29,394 and 6,174 respectively. The total numbers of claims received for each allowance in each of the last five years and the total numbers of claims allowed in those years are as follows:

  Year

  Claims received

  Claims allowed

  Mobility Allowance

  1984

  4,544

  2,055

  1985

  5,017

  2,330

  1986

  5,427

  2,959

  1987

  6,382

  2,838

  1988

  6,278

  2,866

  Attendance Allowance

  1984

  12,043

  8,697

  1985

  12,285

  8,186

  1986

  12,409

  9,078

  1987

  13,951

  8,651

  1988

  15,709

  10,852

  Invalid Care

  1984

  208

  183

  1985

  391

  156

  1986

  5,072

  1,264

  1987

  2,995

  3,528

  1988

  1,873

  1,849

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the age profile of those receiving(a) mobility allowance (b) attendance allowance and (c) invalidity care allowance.
  468
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: The latest available information is as follows:

  (a) Mobility Allowance

  Age at 31 December 1988

  Number

  Under 5

  8

  5–9

  365

  10–14

  351

  15–19

  472

  20–24

  493

  25–29

  465

  30–34

  528

  35–39

  580

  40–44

  757

  45–49

  942

  50–54

  1,232

  55–59

  1,760

  60–64

  2,354

  65+

  2,615

  Total

  12,922

  (b) Attendance Allowance

  Age at 29 December 1988

  Number

  2–4

  577

  5–9

  1,246

  10–14

  1,032

  15

  190

  16–19

  776

  20–24

  910

  25–29

  812

  30–34

  695

  35–39

  716

  40–44

  694

  45–49

  798

  50–54

  901

  55–59

  1,168

  60–64

  1,499

  65–69

  2,147

  70–74

  2,524

  75–79

  3,444

  80–84

  3,828

  85–89

  3,039

  90–94

  1,663

  469

  Age at 29 December 1988

  Number

  95+

  735

  Total

  29,394

  (c) Invalid Care Allowance

  Age at 23 February 1989

  Number

  16–20

  46

  21–25

  162

  26–30

  427

  31–35

  628

  36–40

  805

  41–45

  1,061

  46–50

  969

  51–55

  890

  56–60

  881

  61–65

  269

  66–70

  24

  70+

  12

  Total

  6,174

  Attendance Allowance Board
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the number of adjudication officer decisions reviewed by the Attendance Allowance Board in each of the past five years, the number of the board's own decisions which were further reviewed and the outcome of such reviews.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: The numbers of decisions reviewed by the Attendance Allowance Board in each of the last five years and the outcomes of the reviews are as follows:

  Year

  Decisions Reviewed

  Claims allowed on Review

  1984

  1,663

  899

  1985

  1,665

  866

  1986

  2,079

  830

  1987

  2,982

  1,219

  1988

  3,055

  1,487

  The number of appeals on a point of law heard by the social security commissioner against decisions of the Attendance Allowance Board in each of the last five years and the outcomes of such appeals are as follows:

  Year

  Appeals Heard

  Appeals Allowed

  1984

  6

  3

  1985

  16

  5

  1986

  22

  7

  1987

  33

  8

  1988

  71

  17

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the number of adjudication officer decisions in respect of mobility allowance which were reviewed on appeal by the medical board in each of the past four years, the outcome 470
  of such reviews, the number of such decisions further appealed to the medical appeal tribunal and the outcome of such appeals.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: The numbers of appeals heard by medical boards and medical appeal tribunals in respect of claims to mobility allowance in Northern Ireland in each of the last four years and the outcome of such appeals are as follows:

  Year

  Appeals heard

  Appeals allowed

  Appeals to medical boards

  1985

  733

  188

  1986

  822

  186

  1987

  697

  135

  1988

  987

  210

  Appeals to medical appeal tribunals

  1985

  226

  83

  1986

  273

  75

  1987

  277

  97

  1988

  292

  117

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have lost their lives in the course of their duty in Northern Ireland during each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 18 May 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Officers

  1984

  10

  1985

  23

  1986

  15

  1987

  17

  1988

  7

  These figures include members of the RUC and RUC Reserve.

  Medical Cards
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many medical cards were issued in Northern Ireland in each of the five weeks beginning 16 April, 23 April and 30 April, 7 May and 14 May and the five corresponding weeks in 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Week Commencing

  Number of Cards issued

  1989

  1988

  16 April

  1,372

  527

  23 April

  785

  516

  30 April

  845

  555

  7 May

  1,789

  840

  14 May1

  1,148

  786

  1 Up to and including 18 May.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicles and at what value
  471
  were purchased by (a) his Department and (b) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British made within

  Department

  Vehicles purchased by department

  Vehicles purchased by public sector agencies

  Number of British made vehicles1

  Number

  Value2

  Number

  Value2

  DANI

  74

  918,705

  —

  —

  52

  DOE

  134

  1,691,242

  135

  2,992,866

  237

  DENT3

  1

  11,000

  134

  2,626,734

  —

  DHSS4

  183

  2,067,550

  —

  —

  118

  DED

  3

  22,902

  213

  2,120,527

  161

  1 This list is based on the definition employed by the Department of Trade and Industry for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom—produced if the United Kingdom context exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value.

  2 Includes VAT.

  3 Department of Education was unable to establish number of British made vehicles.

  4 Department of Health and Social Services could provide only a total figure for both Departments and the public sector.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the current financial position of the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  After a series of good years the United Kingdom fishing industry is on a strong financial footing. Although landings so far this year are down compared with 1988, their average value remains high. And fuel prices, a major cost item for most fishermen, have fallen substantially over the past five years.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of third country fish imports since the beginning of the current year; and what assessment he has made of possible breaches of the reference pricing system.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Imports of fresh, chilled and frozen fish from countries outside the European Community in the first three months of 1989 were 47,552 tonnes at a value of £59 million. A small number of consignments have been below the reference price but none has been significant enough to trigger Community action .

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the areas of priority in the fishing industry which he will seek to raise at the Council of Ministers on 21 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There are a number of issues of concern to the industry which I expect to be discussed by the Council and I will take a view on what else I need to raise when I see the draft agenda.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on tonnage and horsepower in the United Kingdom fishing fleet and on how these relate to the targets accepted by Her Majesty's Government under the multi-annual guidance programme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet, as at 1 January 1989, was 174,774 gross
  472
  the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The information available is as follows:

  registered tonnage (GRT) and 890,995 kilowatts (kw) (1,211,753 horsepower). Under our multi-annual guidance programme the United Kingdom is obliged to reduce fleet capacity to 161,231 GRT and 831,708 kw by the end of this year, to 150,336 GRT and 785,340 kw by the end of 1990, and to 141,620 GRT and 748,245 kw by the end of the programme on 31 December 1991.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider the decision to grant an extension of registration and licensing facilities to the flags-of-convenience vessels currently under legal debate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There has been no decision to grant an extension of registration to any flag-of-convenience vessels. With effect from 1 April 1989 any vessels which failed to satisfy the new registration rules for fishing vessels under part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 have been removed from the register, and cannot lawfully fish against United Kingdom quotas.

  Provided they do not fish in the meantime, the owners of those vessels party to the legal challenge to the new registration rules (in the Factortame case) have until 1 October 1989 to transfer their licences upon the sale of the vessels to genuine British owners who meet the new registration rules.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consideration he has given to the introduction of a scheme of decommissioning of the fishing fleet under European Community regulation No. 4028/86.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Monday 22 May to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), at column 372.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on licensing policy for the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Access to United Kingdom quota species continues to be governed by the restrictive licensing scheme first introduced in 1984 and subsequently amended on several occasions. Fisheries Departments are considering whether further amendments might be
  473
  desirable in the light of the wide-ranging and diverse responses from the fishing industry to our consultation exercise last year.

  Brogdale Experimental Horticulture Station
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Brogdale experimental horticulture station is to be closed; and what arrangements will be made for the care and maintenance of the national fruit variety collection there.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The proposal to close Brogdale experimental horticulture station, which was announced to the House on 21 March, stems from the withdrawal of public funding from near market R and D. Final decisions on the closure of Brogdale will not be taken until consultations with industry have been concluded. We intend however to ensure that the national fruit collection is preserved, and we are considering what arrangements should be made in the event that the station is closed.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost to public funds of(a) the Brogdale experimental horticulture station and (b) the national fruit variety collection there, for each of the years 1979 to date in (i) current prices and (ii) constant prices.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information relating to the gross full economic cost of Brogdale experimental husbandry station from 1981–82 is as follows:

  Gross full economic cost (£ thousands)

  Year

  (a) current prices

  (b) constant prices (1987–88 base)

  1981–82

  502

  672

  1982–83

  656

  820

  1983–84

  739

  882

  1984–85

  785

  892

  1985–86

  917

  984

  1986–87

  876

  911

  1987–88

  881

  881

  Important elements of the overall cost of maintaining the national fruit collection are undertaken in common with support to other work undertaken at Brogdale EHS. Separate NFC costings have not been collected throughout the period in question, but on the basis of manpower required to maintain the NFC it is estimated that, as part of Brogdale EHS, the NFC accounted for some 7 per cent. of Brogdale's total costs in 1987–88, equivalent to some £60,000. It is not thought likely that this relative cost has been significantly different in earlier years.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is intended to change the cash and running cost limits on any Department vote for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised Estimate the cash limit for class IV, vote 2, (Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; administration) will be reduced by £1,284,000 from £39,509,000 to £38,225,000, and that for class IV,474
  vote 5 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; departmental research, advisory services and administration) will be reduced by £72,000 from £257,014,000 to £256,942,000. The running cost limit for class IV, vote 2 will also be reduced by £76,000 from £19,957,000 to £19,881,000 and that for class IV, vote 5 will be reduced by £72,000 from £262,458,000 to £262,386,000.

  The reductions in the running cost limits on votes 2 and 5 reflect the transfer of provision to the Scottish Office administration vote (class XVI, vote 21) for processing data from England and Wales in connection with the beef special premium scheme. The remainder of the reduction to the cash limit of £1,208,000 on vote 2 arises on IBAP's agency payments to DANI in respect of the beef variable premium scheme which has ended.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of the letters he received on 22 June 1988 and 15 November 1988 from Sir Richard Southwood which contained the interim recommendations of his committee and Government action on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: Yes, I have arranged for copies of the letters to be placed in the Library of the House today.

  Meat Products (Animal Brains)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any statutory restrictions exist on the use of animal brains in the manufacture of human foodstuffs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 prohibit the use of brains in the manufacture of uncooked meat products. I shall shortly be issuing proposals for legislation which would prohibit the sale of baby foods containing brains and other specified offal. I understand through trade sources that brains are not used in baby foods.

  Pollution
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now ban the discharge into waters off the north Devon coast of untreated sewage and chemical waste.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The discharge of waste by pipeline is regulated by water authorities. Water authorities' own discharges of sewage by pipeline are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  My Ministry licenses deposits from vessels. There are no licences for deposit off the north Devon coast of chemical waste. Most of the sewage sludge which is licensed has been treated. The disposal site is periodically monitored and no significant adverse effects have been identified.

HEALTH

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates will be the average capital charge to self-governing hospital trusts in London.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Self-governing trusts will not pay capital charges, but they will be given a financial regime similar to the capital charging system for district managed hospitals. The precise details are still being finalised and I expect to give further details within the next few weeks.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number and location of those hospitals considering self-governing status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Regional health authorities have been asked to send expressions of interest to the Department by 31 May. But I understand that well over 100 expressions of interest have been received throughout the country.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the White Paper proposals for medical audit.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the proposals for medical audit outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" on medical audit.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our proposals on medical audit have been widely welcomed by doctors. The White Paper made it clear that there would be discussions with the medical profession and first meetings have already been held in a constructive manner.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether National Health Service self-governing hospitals will have to retain emergency services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes, unless it would be better for these services to be provided elsewhere.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that copies of the White Paper "Working for Patients" are available to doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  Copies of "Working for Patients" were sent to health authorities and family practitioner committees to explain the proposals to doctors in their management role. Copies of the three working papers directly relevant to the family doctor service were sent to all GPs. Individual copies of the White Paper are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, price £8·80, or by order through public libraries.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from members of the public about his White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  In excess of 4,000 letters.
  476
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the proposals to allow hospitals to become sell governing National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on his proposals to allow hospitals to become self governing.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received a large number of letters from members of the public and many responses from representational bodies on the White Paper proposals including those relating to enabling hospitals to become self governing within the NHS. Many people find the proposals attractive.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the consequences of allowing general practitioners' practices to hold their own budgets.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals to allow general practitioners' practices to hold their own budgets will affect patient care.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Practice budgets will offer general medical practitioners new opportunities to improve the quality and standard of service to their patients. GPs with budgets will have control over large sums of taxpayers' money which they will be able to use as they judge best for the provision of care to their patients. This means that GPs will, for the first time, be able to back their referral decisions for those conditions covered by the budget with taxpayers' money to provide the chosen hospital with finance for the treatment. As a result hospitals will be encouraged to be more responsive to the needs of individual GPs and their patients, and GPs in the practice budget scheme will have a much greater role than at present in influencing the provision of hospital services. This can only be of benefit to patients and to the NHS as a whole.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from professional bodies and trades unions concerning the review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  A good many expressing many different views.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the effect on doctors who choose to operate a practice budget, as proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients" of an overspend in their budget.

  Mr. Mellor
  There is of course no question of patients not receiving the treatment they need as a result of a budget overspend. Larger practices which volunteer to hold a practice budget will be allowed to overspend by up to 5 per cent. a year on the basis that a corresponding reduction will be made the following year. Where the overspend is due to the changed cirumstances of a practice such as an increase in the number of patients or in their relative need for services, the practice may ask for a review of its budget. If a practice overspends by more than 5 per cent., or persistently overspends at a lower level, the family practitioner committee will initiate a thorough audit. An overspend greater than 5 per cent. for two years in succession may lead to the practice losing the right to hold its own budget.
  477
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of Health how will patients be affected by the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the consequences for patient care of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Our proposals will produce a better quality of care for all NHS patients, including elderly and chronically sick people. We intend to bring all services up to the standard of the very best and to make certain that taxpayers' money is used to best effect from the patients' point of view. The proposals reflect our strong commitment to the principles on which the NHS was founded and will ensure that it is more than ready to face the rapidly changing and rising demands upon it as medical science progresses and the average age of the population rises.

  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether under the proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", a patient could go without necessary drugs if a general practitioner overspends on his or her drug budget.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. As a result of our proposals no patient could ever go without necessary drugs in any circumstances. Indicative prescribing budgets for GPs will be set at sensible and realistic levels and in discussion with each practice to reflect the needs for drugs of patients in that practice. While general medical practitioners will be expected to aim to contain their prescribing within their indicative budgets, we fully accept that the legitimate demand for drugs may not follow a consistent pattern at practice level and that some practices may exceed their indicative budgets with good reason. There will be no question of any doctor ever being prevented from prescribing necessary medicine for any patient, whether or not he or she has overspent or will overspend his indicative budget.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the consequences of the new general practitioners' contract for rural practices.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how rural practices will be affected by the new general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of the future of general practitioners' practices in rural areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As I announced to the House on 5 May, we have now reached agreement with the general medical services committee's negotiators on all the major outstanding issues on the new contract for GPs. We have modified our proposals in several ways which will be welcomed by GPs serving rural areas. We have agreed to retain the present rural practice payments scheme pending its revision by the Central Advisory Committee on Rural Practice Payments. We have included home visits in the hours of availability to patients required of GPs, although in consequence we have raised the number of hours to 26 per week. We have agreed that the requirement for GPs to be available over five days a week may be reduced to four days where the GP carries out other health-related activity in the public service (for example, service in a community hospital).
  478
  We have also agreed that ad hoc minor surgical operations may be aggregated for the purpose of claiming entitlement to the new minor surgery sessional payments. Many GPs serving rural areas will benefit from retention of seniority payments (though reduced in value) and from the extension of the higher night visit fee to rotas of up to 10 GPs. Retention of partnership average list size for calculating entitlement to basic practice allowance, and the lowering of the threshold for full basic practice allowance to 1,200 patients rather than 1,500 as previously proposed, will also benefit GPs in rural areas.

  The general medical services committee has agreed to put the agreement to the annual conference of local medical committee representatives in June on the basis recommended by its negotiators.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the proposals affecting family practitioner committees in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received responses to the White Paper "Working for Patients" from a large number of organisations and individuals. Many of these have included comments on the proposals affecting family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on allowing district health authorities to purchase health care from hospitals.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on his proposals to allow health authorities to purchase health care from hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received a large number of representations on the White Paper proposals, from statutory, voluntary and professional bodies and from individuals including right hon. and hon. Members. Many have welcomed the proposed relationship between health authorities and general practitioner practice budget holders on the one hand and hospitals as the providers of services on the other since this will allow contracts to specify services, quality of standards and levels of agreed funding, enabling money to follow patient choice. We will take careful note of these comments in taking forward our plans for implementing our policies.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will commission any pilot studies of general practitioner practices operating practice budgets similar to those proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  Eligibility for practice budgets will be confined, at least initially, to practices or groups of practices with a registered list of at least 11,000 patients to provide sufficient budgetary flexibility. Practices will also need to be able to demonstrate the ability to manage budgets including having adequate administrative support and IT and information systems. On this basis we see no need for separate pilot studies of practice budgets but we will of course keep the system under review once it has started to operate in April 1991 and make any improvements which are necessary in the light of experience.
  479
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received to date in response to his proposals for National Health Service reforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) earlier today.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expressions of interest he has received from hospitals in Shropshire for the granting of National Health Service hospital trust status.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. However, I understand that the West Midlands regional health authority has received a number of expressions of interest in self government from hospitals in the region; these will be sent to the Department by 31 May.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposed indicative drugs budgets for general practitioners will affect patient care.

  Mr. Mellor
  Indicative prescribing budgets will improve patient care. They will provide a further incentive to general practitioners to examine their prescribing patterns critically to ensure that they prescribe in the most effective way possible. This includes prescribing only when and for as long as necessary. More effective prescribing is better for patients. All patients will always get the drugs they need.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made on his proposals to cash limit general practitioners' budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are making good progress in developing details plans for implementing practice budgets for GPs from 1 April 1991. These budgets will be available to GPs who fulfil the eligibility criteria and choose to opt for them in view of the new freedoms of choice they will confer on the practice.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether National Health Service self governing hospitals will have to retain core services.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes, unless it would be better for these services to be provided elsewhere.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have applied for self-budgeting status in accordance with the provisions in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for information he has received from National Health Service hospitals interested in achieving self governing status.

  Mr. Mellor
  Regional health authorities are currently considering expressions of interest in individual hospitals becoming self governing. They have been asked to send the expressions of interest to the Department, together with their comments, by 31 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates to be the optimum size of practice for a general practitioner in an average urban area; and if he will make a statement.
  480
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of the increased capitation element in the general practitioners' contract on doctor-patient relationships.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what detailed assessment he has made of the effect of the new general practitioners' contract on list sizes.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what detailed assessment he has made of the implications of the new general practitioners' contract for doctors' list sizes.

  Mr. Mellor
  We believe that the increase to 60 per cent. of the proportion of general practitioners' income represented by capitation payments will stimulate greater competition among general practitioners and make services more responsive to patients' needs.

  Our proposals for making more information available to patients and making it easier to change doctors will encourage patients to choose the general practitioner who provides the best service. We expect therefore that general practitioners who provide a wide range of high-quality services will gain patients, and those who do not will have to improve their services in order to maintain income. List sizes will, however, settle al levels consistent with the provision and maintenance of high-quality services, because patients will not join or remain on the list of a general practitioner whose services are below standard. We do not consider that there is an optimum list size, because the quality of services depends on a range of factors (for example, the size and skills of the practice team) of which list size is only one.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what detailed assessment he has made of the implication of the new general practitioners' contract for women doctors.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the proposed contract for general practitioners.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to attract more women doctors into general practice.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received from the British Medical Association relating to the general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) earlier today.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the effects of the proposed changes in the remuneration of general practitioners on the gross income of those who do not opt for their own budgets; and what is the intended effect of the new arrangements in terms of(a) the number of patients per doctor and (b) the number of staff employed by doctors, and their remuneration.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown),
  481
  for Slough (Mr. Watts) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) today. Under the proposals for GP practice budgets set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and working paper 3, practices that opt to become budget holders may invest any savings on their annual budget in improving the services they offer to patients. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration will continue, as now, to recommend the average net income and indirectly reimbursed expenses of all GPs, whether budget holders or not. Other expenses incurred by GPs are reimbursed directly.

  We expect the number of staff employed by GPs to increase as a result of our intention to invest more in practice teams, and to remove the present restraints on their number and the range of qualifying duties. By enabling FPCs to target funds on areas of greatest need, the deployment of practice team staff will become more cost effective.

  Halton General Hospital
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to visit Halton general hospital to discuss the future of the hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  I look forward to a visit when convenient.

  Ministers make special efforts to visit as many hospitals as possible.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the target number of patients to be treated in Halton district general hospital in 1988–89; and what was the actual outcome in that year.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally. My hon. Friend may care to contact the chairman of the Halton district health authority.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-medical services provided within National Health Service hospitals are now subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am aware of at least 20 different non-medical services which health authorities have subjected to competitive tendering, most frequently as the result of local initiatives.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the level of funding of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The level of funding for the NHS is a matter of considerable interest, often raised in correspondence and at meetings and visits; since 1979 expenditure has increased by some 40 per cent. in real terms and we are now spending more on the National Health Service than ever before.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the additional funds allocated to the National Health Service this year are to be used to repay deficits accumulated in earlier years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Within the additional resources allocated to the National Health Service, combined with continued 482
  improvements in efficiency, including planned rationalisations of service, authorities are expected to plan to bring income and expenditure into balance. Where a region has funded excess spending by districts in earlier years the repayment of such funding, including use of the additional resources made available this year, is a matter for agreement between the region and districts concerned.

  Medical Control Agency
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the pharmaceutical industry contributes to the financing of the Medical Control Agency.

  Mr. Mellor
  From I April 1989 the full cost of the Medicines Control Agency work is to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry, save for the costs of the work of the British Pharmacopoeia Commission whose staff are provided by the agency, the cost of NHS inspection work and certain other minor matters. Payment will be made through licence and inspection fees.

  Nurses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeal cases concerning nurses' gradings have been(a) lodged, (b) upheld and (c) refused since I April 1988, by authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) earlier today.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on nursing staff levels in Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Mellor
  As at 31 March 1989 the Oxfordshire DHA had 4,232.1 "worked whole time equivalent" nursing and midwifery staff. Recruitment of trained nursing staff is satisfactory in most specialties and an additional £200,000 has been made available by the district to the John Radcliffe hospital to deploy additional staff on medical and surgical wards. A new nurse training scheme, due to start in October, has attracted a large number of applicants.

  Bassetlaw Hospital
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has had from members of the public or local organisations in Bassetlaw supporting the application from the Bassetlaw health authority to turn the Bassetlaw hospital, Worksop into a self governing trust.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None, but only one against. If an application is made for Bassetlaw health authority to become self governing I will look to the Trent regional health authority to seek the views of all those with an interest.

  Human Placenta
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the sale of human placenta by National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is a long-standing arrangement under which health authorities can make available
  483
  placenta to a commercial organisation. I understand this is used for therapeutic purposes (for example the manufacture of albumen and gamma globulin) and that a small handling charge is paid to participating health authorities to cover storage costs.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the intended effects of the changes in composition of the family practitioner committees proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Family practitioner committees will have a greatly enhanced management role in future as a result of the implementation of the proposals in the two White Papers: "Promoting Better Health" and "Working for Patients". I therefore intend to create committees more suited to taking the necessary decisions and managing the contracts of the doctors, dentists, opticians and pharmacists in contract with the NHS in their area. I believe that FPCs should play a significant role in protecting and raising the standards of primary health care for patients.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the British Medical Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friends to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the British Medical Association; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I understand from newspaper reports that the BMA wishes to meet me again to discuss the White Paper on NHS reforms. I expect therefore to have a meeting with it on that subject in the near future.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financing of local authority and health authority services for the disabled for which his Department has responsibility.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of expenditure on those services for disabled people for which his Department is responsible.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not possible to identify separately the financing of National Health Service expenditure on services for this client group. They will have benefited, however, from the growth in expenditure on the National Health Service by around 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates that in 1988–89 gross expenditure on local authority personal social services for physically and sensorily handicapped people will total over £200 million.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of National Health Service health care expenditure spent in the north-west region as a percentage of total National Health Service health care expenditure, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987–88 total revenue and capital expenditure by health authorities comprising the north-western region was £1,078·4 million, which represented 9 per cent. of the total expenditure of all regional and district health authorities in England.

  Fair Hearing Campaign
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to respond to the recommendations put to him by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf in the fair hearing campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is currently refining its proposals in the light of comments it has received from a number of organisations concerned with the provision of hearing aids. We shall need to consider the very complex issues involved in the context of RNID's revised proposals.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he can give an estimate of the savings made in the last available year from the contracting out of services within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 21 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), at column 564.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the second report of the committee for monitoring arrangements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 18 April, at columns 119–20.

  Midwives
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on midwives regrading.

  Mr. Mellor
  All midwives have been regraded within the new clinical grading structure with effect from 1 April 1988. Information on the assimilation from old grades to the new has been placed in the Library. A number of appeals against gradings are outstanding. Assimilation to the new structure resulted in an average pay increase for 1988–89 of over 20 per cent. The new structure provides greatly improved career opportunities.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the recommendations of the Griffiths report.
  485
  Mr. Mellor
  We have received over 270 representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about Sir Roy's recommendations. Recent responses have been received from a number of national organisations and professional groups. We are studying all responses carefully as we formulate our own proposals.

  Occupational Health Facilities
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities which are providing occupational health facilities to private companies and public bodies.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not collect this information centrally. It is for individual health authorities to decide whether to enter into such arrangements.

  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to review the scope of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 23 February, at column 793.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of IVF within the south-west region, with particular reference to(a) its availability free of charge in Bristol and (b) its non-availability in the North Devon health area.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 15 May, at columns 80–81, and my pursuant reply to him yesterday.

  Homeless and Rootless (Wakefield)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received from the Wakefield family practitioner committee on action taken to help the homeless and rootless; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The family practitioner committee has secured the provision of general medical services on the one official travellers' camp in the Wakefield area. The service, which began on 5 April using the Wakefield health authority's mobile clinic, is provided by a local doctor supported by community nursing staff. No other problems have been encountered.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital closures proposals have been confirmed by his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministerial approval has been given to 85 proposals for total closures of hospitals/units from 1979 to end 1988.

  Childhood Cancer
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by research teams funded by his Department in identifying the causes of childhood cancer incidence.
  486
  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's commissioned research into childhood cancer complements a wide range of studies internationally. A variety of possible factors have been investigated, and while some progress is being made, in general, specific causes are not fully understood.

  Consultants (Dismissals)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants and (b) other doctors in hospitals were dismissed in each of the past 20 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information routinely and could obtain it only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the role of university medical schools in relation to the proposals in "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received representations from various organisations and individuals, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the Joint Committee of Metropolitan and Provincial Deans, which represents the deans of United Kingdom medical schools and clinical facilities. Both these bodies have welcomed the commitment in "Working for Patients" to maintaining the quality of medical education. I will be considering their comments very carefully in developing our proposals.

  In addition, paragraph 4.30 of "Working for Patients" explains that the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education will carry forward its work and make recommendations in the light of the proposals in the White Paper. The steering group contains representatives of all the major bodies with responsibility for medical and dental education, and is making a constructive contribution to the implementation of "Working for Patients".

  Dental and Eye Tests (Changes)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there has been any change in the number of people having dental examinations and eye tests since the introduction of charges.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the impact of the introduction of dental charges on the number of patients attending for dental checks.

  Mr. Mellor
  Demand for dental treatment is subject to short-term fluctuation irrespective of changes made to charges. The Department monitors the number of courses scheduled for payment each month. It is unlikely that an assessment of whether there has been an effect on demand following the introduction of the examination charge can be made until figures are available for the quarter July-September 1989.

  There is no charge for NHS sight tests. We shall be monitoring the position in respect of private sight tests in the autumn.

  Grading
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals in respect of clinical regrading are outstanding at the latest date; and when he expects the appeals to be concluded.
  487
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 25 constituencies with the lowest electorate in 1989 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Constituencies with smallest electorate in 1989

  Electors

  (a) United Kingdom

  Western Isles

  23,097

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,031

  Orkney and Shetland

  31,116

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  32,556

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  38,773

  Montgomery

  41,022

  Glasgow, Pro van

  41,086

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  43,484

  Surbiton

  44,344

  Chelsea

  44,381

  Kensington

  44,393

  Glasgow, Garscadden

  44,828

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  46,345

  Caernarfon

  46,510

  Liverpool, Riverside

  46,563

  Hammersmith

  47,198

  Newham North West

  47,591

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  47,702

  Edinburgh East

  47,802

  Paisley North

  48,213

  Argyll and Bute

  48,695

  Walthamstow

  48,744

  Clackmannan

  48,757

  Glasgow, Springburn

  48,785

  Glasgow, Govan

  48,908

  (b) England

  Surbiton

  44,344

  Chelsea

  44,381

  Kensington

  44,393

  Liverpool, Riverside

  46,563

  Hammersmith

  47,198

  Newham North West

  47,591

  Walthamstow

  48,744

  Greenwich

  49,007

  Plymouth, Drake

  49,930

  Coventry South East

  50,333

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  50,507

  Knowsley North

  50,538

  Barking

  51,501

  Richmond and Barnes

  51,746

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook

  51,788

  Newham South

  52,000

  Fulham

  52,107

  Hendon South

  52,242

  Coventry North West

  52,665

  Kingston upon Thames

  53,048

  Barnsley East

  53,324

  Eltham

  53,542

  Birmingham, Erdington

  53,552

  Hendon North

  54,059

  Liverpool, Garston

  54,059

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report each parliamentary constituency in England where electoral registrations have declined by more than 4 per cent. between 1988 and 1989, together with the size of the decline in each case in percentage and absolute figures.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:
  488

  Parliamentary constituency

  Change in total parliamentary electorate, 1988–89

  Number

  Percentage

  Manchester, Blackley

  -2,421

  -4·1

  Harrow East

  -3,742

  -4·6

  Finchley

  -2,710

  -4·6

  Wolverhampton North East

  -3,101

  -4·9

  Bristol West

  -3,471

  -4·9

  Chelsea

  -2,382

  -5·1

  Southend West

  -4,110

  -5·9

  Mid Kent

  -4,846

  -6·5

  Manchester Central

  -4,078

  -6·6

  Southend East

  -4,658

  -7·7

  Liverpool, Mossley Hill

  -4,865

  -8·1

  Liverpool, West Derby

  -5,263

  -8·8

  Liverpool, Riverside

  -4,707

  -9·2

  Liverpool, Walton

  -7,200

  -9·9

  Liverpool, Garston

  -6,121

  -10·2

  Liverpool, Broadgreen

  -6,825

  -11·1

  Medway

  -7,311

  -11·3

  Transplants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the General Medical Council has ever disciplined a doctor for breach of ethics relating to transplants.

  Mr. Freeman
  The General Medical Council is an independent statutory authority: I suggest that the hon. Member approaches the council for this information.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will specify which will be the next supra-regionally funded heart transplant centre.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have asked the supra regional services advisory group for advice, and expect to make .an announcement later in the year.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people now hold donor cards.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 20 December 1988, at column 241.

  Body Scanners
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which NHS hospitals in the West Midlands RHA at present have whole body scanner facilities; when the equipment was installed in each case; which hospitals it is planned to provide with such facilities as new, or to replace obsolete facilities, in the next 12 months; and which hospitals have paid for equipment in whole or part from voluntary and charitable sources.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.

ENVIRONMENT

  Coventry Evening Telegraph (Article)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the publications in which the Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had printed any article in the form, length or content as that which appeared on Tuesday 9 May in the Coventry Evening Telegraph.
  489
  Mr. Ridley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government distributed more than 500 articles to newspapers throughout the country. Whether their editors chose to print the articles is a matter for them.

  African Elephant
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what fresh initiatives his Department is taking both in respect of unilateral action by Britain and to mobilise international support for action to protect the African elephant and to outlaw the use of ivory in developed nations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 May 1989]: I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to reduce chlorofluorocarbon damage to the ozone layer by arranging for the collection of redundant domestic and commercial refrigerators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am aware of only one nationwide retailer of domestic refrigerators which has arrangements to collect old appliances when delivering new ones, and for recovery of the CFC refrigerants for recycling. The Government are encouraging others to do the same, and officials are discussing with local authority associations what can be done with the appliances which end up with them. Warren Spring laboratory is currently considering the possibility of economic recovery from domestic appliances and the Department is assessing the need for further research in this area.

  CFCs in domestic refrigerators account for only about 3 per cent. of total CFC use in the United Kingdom. There are considerable technical and logistical difficulties in recovering and recycling CFCs from the coolant systems and particularly from the foam insulation in such appliances.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement clarifying the sentence in his Department's leaflet "The Community Charge—How It Will Work For You", which reads"Filling in the form does not mean you will have to pay the community charge for anyone else"
  in relation to the provision in the Act for joint liability.

  Mr. Gummer
  The section of the leaflet to which the hon. Member refers deals with the process of registration. The High Court said in the judgment given on 16 May"The filling in of a registration form does not in itself mean that you will have to pay the community charge for anyone else or indeed yourself. As a matter of law it is no more than the first step in a process which, subject to rights of appeal, will result in names appearing in the register."

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the illustrative figures for the poll tax in Nottingham given since 1987; and when he now expects to estimate the figure to be levied in May 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.
  490
  Published illustrative figures show a community charge in Nottingham of £207 in 1987–88 and £251 in 1988–89. With the proposed transitional safety net arrangements fully in place, the published illustrative figures are £195 for 1987–88 and £231 for 1988–89. Illustrative 1989–90 community charges in England will be published once data needed from local authorities have been received and analysed.

  The illustrative figure for Nottingham will be dependent on spending by Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council. If both the county council and the city council had budgeted to spend according to the assumptions used in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement and had rated accordingly, the 1989–90 illustrative community charge in Nottingham (disregarding the transitional arrangements) would be £251.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  The overwhelming majority of local authorities are making good progress in preparing for the introduction of the community charge. Registration began this week in most areas of England and Wales. The leaflet informing people of their rights and duties has been distributed, despite an attempt to stop it.

  Sea Dredged Aggregates
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the principles upon which he monitors the effect of aggregate dredging on coastal defences and erosion of beaches.

  Mr. Chope
  Government policy, set out in minerals planning guidance note 6, is that licences to dredge for sand and gravel are not and will not be granted by the Crown Estate if it is likely that coastal erosion would result.

  The arrangements for consulting Government Departments and other bodies on applications to dredge minerals from United Kingdom territorial waters and the United Kingdom continental shelf ensure that all proposals are referred to consultants for professional advice at an early stage. If these investigations demonstrate an unavoidable risk of coast erosion, the Crown Estate would reject the application without further consideration.

  The responsibility for the monitoring of coastal defences and erosion of beaches lies with the appropriate individual local authority.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance his Department will give to football clubs to encourage all-seater stadiums.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no plans to provide financial assistance to football clubs. I shall be discussing the question of all-seater stadiums with the football authorities shortly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to have a report on the experiment of deemed consent for directional advertising signs for tourist attractions and facilities.

  Mr. Chope
  The part-time consultant who is monitoring the experiment in east Kent has submitted an interim report, which is now being considered.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) what proposals he has to monitor the consequences for local authorities of the reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution;

  (2) what plans he has for monitoring the effect on the relationship between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local authorities of the reorganisation of the inspectorate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We recognise the importance of regular links with local authorities. We shall give high priority to maintaining good communications with them as we develop the reorganisation proposals. The effectiveness of the reorganised inspectorate will be kept under close review.

  The Government's 1986 consultation document on air pollution control in Great Britain set out new control powers for local authorities dealing with a second tier of scheduled processes. These powers will establish new working relationships between the inspectorate and local authorities. We have set up a local authority unit to monitor the effectiveness of the operation of the proposed controls. The inspectorate of pollution liaison committee will also continue to discuss matters of common interest between local authorities and H MIP and the Environment Departments.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to release empty residential property belonging to his Department for use by homeless people.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no empty properties owned by the Department of the Environment at present suitable for use as temporary accommodation for the homeless.

  Should empty residential properties not be required for further Government use and they cannot be sold because of legal restrictions or sold within six months due to market conditions they are offered first to the local housing authority and then to a housing association.

  Playgrounds
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations regarding safety standards for the surfaces of public playgrounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received 34 written representations on this matter since the beginning of March and I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to discuss his Bill.

  Water Standards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department holds for the(a) Yorkshire water authority and (b) Severn-Trent water authority, that enables him to assess the extent to which potable water in these water authorities complies with the European Community directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/77/EEC); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department has information about supplies made by the Yorkshire water authority and the Severn-Trent water authority which regularly do riot comply with one or other of the standards in the EC drinking water directive and about programmes to achieve compliance. Information concerning supplies where there is occasional non-compliance is being submitted by these authorities in the context of further improvement programmes.

  M20 Service Area (Maidstone)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the report of the inquiry carried out by his inspector into the motorway service area proposed for the M20 in the Maidstone area to be published.

  Mr. Chope
  The inspector's reports on the public inquiry into planning applications in respect of two proposals for motorway service areas at Hollingbourne, and into a related draft compulsory purchase order, will be published when the decision letter on these matters is issued. We hope to make these decisions in the near future.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the remit of his inspector carrying out the inquiry into the proposal for a motorway service area on the M20 in the Maidstone area has been amended to take account of the proposed route for the high-speed rail link passing through the same area.

  Mr. Chope
  No. British Rail published its proposed route after the public inquiry into the motorway service area proposals had closed. I understand that discussions between British Rail and the Department of Transport indicate that the proposed route could be accommodated under the proposed motorway service area site and that it would not materially affect the land use planning questions considered at the inquiry.

  Registers of Financial Interests
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the desirability of establishing registers of financial interests for(a) county and (b) district councillors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We said in the "Conduct of Local Authority Business—Government Response to the Widdicombe Committee of Inquiry" (Cm. 433) that we propose to introduce legislation for statutory registers of pecuniary interests for councillors (see paragraphs 4.3–4·4). We have set up a working group with the local authority associations to consider what such registers should contain. We hope to introduce amendments on this subject to the current Local Government and Housing Bill.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum spent since 1983 by the Nature Conservancy Council on management agreements under section 15 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to prevent damage to sites of special scientific interest by afforestation; and if he will state the number of sites of special scientific interest involved.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nature Conservancy Council has spent some £1·3 million since 1983 on management agreements under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 to prevent damage to 21 sites of special scientific interest by afforestation.

  Aveley Methane Ltd.
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the ownership of Aveley Methane Ltd.
  494
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that Aveley Methane Ltd. is a joint venture involving the East London waste authority, Coal Processing Ltd. and merchant banking interests to utilise landfill gas from a site at Aveley, for which the East London waste authority holds the freehold.

  Barking and Dagenham (Financial Assistance)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, seeking a policy of prior consultation before a statutory order under clause 30(5) and (6) of the Local Government and Housing Bill is made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a letter from the clerk of the East London waste authority (who is also the town clerk of the London borough of Barking and Dagenham) on the subject. We have already made it clear that we intend to consult local government about such an order before it is made.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations are taking place, and with whom, on potential changes to planning legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In January my right hon. Friend published a White Paper on the future of development plans. In March he consulted interested bodies about proposed improvements to land compensation and compulsory purchase legislation, and about possible changes to the enforcement of planning control arising from the report of Mr. Robert Carnwath, QC.

  The Department is also currently inviting views on the following consultation papers:

  Final date for comments

  Permitted use rights in the countryside

  30 June

  Planning application forms

  31 May

  Review of Special Industrial Use Classes (B3 to B7) Compulsory purchase by public authorities

  14 July

  (Inquiries Procedure) rules

  21 June

  Planning control over hazardous substances

  17 July

  In addition, my right hon. Friend is currently undertaking on behalf of the Law Commission a limited consultation with organisations with an interest in the proposed consolidation of the Planning Acts. Consolidation is a clarifying exercise and entails only minor changes and improvements to the existing statutes.

  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the Severn-Trent water authority's capital expenditure has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is contained in the table:

  Severn-Trent Capital Expenditure

  1979–80 £ million

  1988–89 £ million

  Cash

  75·8

  193·8

  1988–89 prices

  120·9

  193·0

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  —

  —

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the outcome of the recent consultation exercise on the application of the competition legislation to the functions transferred from the Inner London education authority to the inner boroughs and the City of London.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have decided to make regulations which will introduce a phased implementation programme for the introduction of competition under the Local Government Act 1988 between 1 August 1991 and 1 August 1992 and provide that competition under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 will apply from 1 April 1990. Of the functions which will transfer to the inner London boroughs and the City of London after ILEA's abolition on 1 April 1990 the following functions will be subject to competitive tender: vehicle maintenance, ground maintenance, school catering, building cleaning; and building maintenance.

  Groundwater Levels (London)
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action her Majesty's Government propose, following the recent publication of the construction industry research and information report entitled, "The Engineering Implications of Rising Groundwater Levels in the Deep Aquifer Beneath London".

  Mr. Howard
  My Department, which was one of the sponsors of the research and is the lead Department on this matter, welcomes the report and is examinig its conclusions and recommendations carefully. We have asked the National Rivers Authority advisory committee to arrange for the National Rivers Authority, when it is established, to undertake the monitoring and predictive modelling of the water levels and the publication of the results; to examine the potential for increasing water abstractions from the aquifer below London; and to examine the feasibility and costs of a permanent dewatering scheme.

  Water Bill
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of Commissioner Ripa de Meana's letter of 16 May about clause 20 of the Water Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  I am arranging for copies of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House today.

  Marine Habitats
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which marine habitats are being studied by the North sea task force; if these include inter-tidal and estuarine habitats; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much funding for North sea research, under the direction of the North sea task force, has been directed towards research into the importance of inter-tidal and estuarine habitats to the well being of the North sea biological system; which particular aspects are being examined; and if he will make a statement;

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: it is not envisaged that the North sea task force will itself commission research into the marine environment, but rather that it will act as a co-ordinating body to bring together the work of all the North sea states. Studies on the coastal margin and inter-tidal areas have been identified by the task force as a priority area and more detailed proposals will be considered at its third meeting in September 1989. Research on inter-tidal and estuarine habitats has also been identified as an sea research programme: detailed proposals are now being drawn up to supplement existing work in this area.

  Shiplift Project (Faslane)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what length of delays will be experienced in the shiplift project at Faslane as a result of the construction difficulties being experienced by the contractor.

  Mr. Chope
  The delay to the shiplift construction programme is about six months but this will be contained within the float from the overall works programme.
  497
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will the extra costs involved as a result of the delay in construction of the shiplift project at Faslane; and who will bear these costs.

  Mr. Chope
  This is commercial and confidential at this stage.

  Palace of Westminster (Space)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many square feet within the Palace of Westminster are currently used for(a) office space for Members, (b) office space for peers, (c) office space for staff, (d) bars and (e) restaurants/dining areas.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind and would like to write to me I will see what I can do.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Obscene Telephone Calls
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports the police received of obscene telephone calls; and how many prosecutions in relation to obscene telephone calls were brought under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 in each of the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available centrally on the number of reports that the police receive of obscene telephone calls or for prosecutions under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Such prosecutions are classified with other offences under this act and therefore cannot be separately identified.

  Heatherington Report
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to place in the Vote Office copies of the Heatherington report on war crimes upon publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on 18 April at column 92.

  Police Constables
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of police constables in(a) the Basildon area, and (b) England and Wales; what were the comparable figures in 1974, 1976, and each year from 1979 to 1988; and what is the provisional figure for 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Constables strength at 31 December

  1Basildon sub-division

  England and Wales

  1974

  103

  74,740

  1976

  114

  81,342

  1979

  119

  83,684

  1980

  120

  87,516

  498

  Constables strength at 31 December

  1Basildon sub-division

  England and Wales

  1981

  120

  89,509

  1982

  121

  90,581

  1983

  123

  90,512

  1984

  125

  89,946

  1985

  123

  89,775

  1986

  129

  90,379

  1987

  132

  92,850

  1988

  134

  93,508

  19893

  133

  294,300

  1 Deployment of officers between sub-divisions and to other police functions is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide.

  2 This figure is an estimate and includes around 800 new constable posts approved for 1989–90.

  3 Provisional.

  Capital Punishment
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the reintroduction of capital punishment.

  Mr. John Patten
  We receive many letters about capital punishment, both from the public and from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. The precise figures are not available.

  Bingo Clubs
  Mr. Fawn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the weekly attendances at licensed bingo clubs; how many arrests have taken place in bingo clubs over the last 12 months; and how many complaints about the membership scheme for those attending bingo clubs he has received over the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Gaming Board for Great Britain believes that in total there may be in excess of 2 million attendances weekly at licensed bingo clubs in Great Britain. There is no power of arrest for offences under the Gaming Act 1968, which regulates licensed bingo. Representations about this system of regulation which have been made to the Home Office or the board in the past five years are not categorised routinely by those referring to the requirement for gaming in licensed bingo clubs to be operated under a membership scheme.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent arrangements have been made for United Kingdom immigration controls to take place prior to embarkation at airports abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The immigration service operated successful trials over a one-week period at the end of March and the beginning of April in conjunction with Trans World Airlines operating into Heathrow terminal 3 from J. F. Kennedy airport in New York and with Piedmont airlines operating into Gatwick south from Charlotte. Both trials were successful and were well received by both the passengers and the companies involved. As far as any future activity is concerned the Immigration Act 1988 allows for the provision of additional services against full cost recovery and any applications for pre-clearance will be considered in this context.
  499
  Recent press reports have linked pre-clearance with enhanced security arrangements both here and in the United States of America. Whilst this may be an additional benefit, the arrangements are principally designed to ease congestion on arrival at United Kingdom airports.

  Police Forces
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will be holding a review within the next five years to reduce the number of separate police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 11 May at column 529.

  Female Police Officers (Firearms)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many female police officers in England and Wales are currently qualified to carry firearms; what are the figures for five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list by year for the last 10 years in England and Wales (a) in how many operations firearms were issued to female police officers and (b) in how many of these operations shots were fired by female police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners are serving sentences under the protection of rule 43; and what is the percentage in relation to the numbers of female prisoners, by prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information as at 31 March 1989 is set out in the table. The percentages relate to the total sentenced population at each establishment.

  Sentenced female prisoners at 31 March 1989

  Establishment

  Number on Rule 43 (own protection)

  Percentage of total

  Cookham Wood Prison

  2

  1·7

  Holloway Prison

  5

  2·2

  New Hall Prison

  8

  18·2

  Styal Prison

  1

  0·5

  There were no prisoners on rule 43 for their own protection at any of the other eight establishments holding sentenced female prisoners.

  Police (Racial Equality)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will commit funds for updating the police initial recruitment test as recommended by the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Normanton 500
  (Mr. O'Brien) on 11 May, at column 526. The question of funding may have to be considered when the police advisory board has completed its work.

  Asylum
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of asylum applications submitted at ports of entry subsequent to the applicant being refused entry to the United Kingdom on other grounds in each of the last three years;

  (2) what was the average decision time taken by his Department for port applications for asylum in each of the last three years; and what is the current position;

  (3) how many people were refused entry to the United Kingdom at ports of entry in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to questions from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 19 May, at columns 316–17.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were made at United Kingdom ports of entry in each of the last three years; and how many applicants were granted asylum.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information is given in the following table. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Applications1 for refugee status at United Kingdom ports, and grants' of refugee status or exceptional leave to enter in port application cases

  Number of cases1

  Applications received

  Grants of refugee status2

  Refused asylum but granted leave to enter on exceptional grounds2

  1985

  1,634

  40

  315

  1986

  1,102

  30

  1,118

  1987

  1,053

  57

  735

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 The grant figures include, where relevant, grants on applications made in earlier years.

  These figures do not include south-east Asian refugees who are dealt with under separate arrangements and are granted settlement on their arrival in the United Kingdom. The number granted settlement in the years 1985 to 1988 is published in table 18 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1987" (Cm. 415) and in table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin, issue 10/89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988", copies of which are in the Library.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for non-payment of televison licence fees in Warrington, Widnes, Crewe and the whole of Cheshire in 1986, 1987, 1988 and since the start of 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: Information available to me supplied by the national television licence records office relates to the number of prosecutions for television licence evasion by area of the television licence enquiry offices only. These area offices are based on the post code system. Information for

  501
  Warrington, Widnes and Crewe and the whole of Cheshire is therefore not readily available. Data for the area offices covering the county of Cheshire are as follows:

  Prosecution for television licence evasion by area television licence enquiry office covering the county of Cheshire

  Area

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Altrincham

  2,388

  3,834

  4,220

  5,380

  Preston

  4,432

  5,065

  5,204

  4,660

  Shrewsbury

  1,007

  1,423

  2,067

  2,004

  Note: Figures given are for financial year (April to March).

TRANSPORT

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many accidents have taken place in each of the past five years for which figures are available on unmanned and unlit railway crossings involving (i) foot users, (ii) vehicle users and (iii) cattle or other farm animals;

  (2) how many accidents have taken place in each of the past five years for which figures are available on railway crossings which are lit involving (i) foot users, (ii) vehicle users (iii) cattle or other farm animals.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. The total numbers of accidents at all level crossings (manually-operated automatic and unprotected) during the period 1984–88 are as shown. These categories comprise:Manual: manned gates or barriers, including barriers remotely controlled by closed circuit television.
  Automatic: half-barriers and open crossings protected by road traffic signals; user-worked gates (UWG) protected by miniature warning lights.
  Unprotected: UWG: UWG with telephone; open crossings; footpath crossings.

  The Department's accident records do not show whether a crossing is lit. All manually operated public crossings have some form of illumination and it is a requirement that where the road approaches are lit, all manual and automatic crossings must be lit at least to the same standard.

  Level crossing accidents

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  Manual

  30

  25

  22

  14

  13

  Automatic

  16

  26

  22

  21

  32

  Unprotected

  30

  28

  32

  29

  31

  1 Provisional

  London Underground (Safety)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish the report of the chief safety inspector on safety arrangements on London Underground, in line with recommendations 56 and 57 of the Fennell report into the King's Cross Underground fire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is for London Underground Ltd. to consider whether any reports which may be produced in response to these recommendations should be published.
  502
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the railway inspectorate's report on the safety management systems for London Underground stations.

  Mr. Channon
  As I told the House on 10 November 1988, at columns 496–97, I commissioned the chief inspecting officer of railways to carry out an urgent survey of the safety management systems applying to stations on London Underground. The report has now been completed and I am arranging for it to be published this afternoon, together with London Underground's written response to it. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  London Underground's first priority, after the King's Cross fire and, later, Mr. Fennell's report on it, was to take immediate action to deal with potentially unsafe equipment and conditions. This includes, for example, fitting fire detection and alarm systems on escalators and the removal of wood panelling as part of a safety programme costing nearly £300 millions over three years.

  Safety is not, however, only about equipment and investment. It is now increasingly recognised that formal management systems to promote and monitor health and safety are required. Mr. Fennell recommended that the railway inspectorate should keep the Underground's management of safety under review. Today's report is the result of action taken on that recommendation.

  The report is based on a survey conducted by a team drawn from the railway inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive and the London fire brigade.

  It assessed London Underground's safety management systems against the standards of the international safety rating system (ISRS), one of several recognised methods for safety audit, but one which has previously been applied mainly in other industries. The ISRS is designed to provide a progressive safety management programme. The optimum standards within the ISRS represent excellence in safety management, which should be achieved some five to 10 years after the introduction of the programme.

  During its field work in January and February, the team found that some aspects were well managed. These included the Underground's controls on purchasing, employment of contractors, and the arrangements for recruiting and placing staff.

  However, the team also found that much work still remains to be done. This includes the need for major improvements in leadership in safety management; in training for managers in health and safety; and in preparation of procedures for critical tasks, engineering controls and behavioural aspects.

  The team's report makes 26 major recommendations together with a large number that are more detailed. The team consider that the priority areas for action, in addition to leadership in health and safety management, are job analysis and observation, organisational rules, engineering control and preparedness for emergencies. These recommendations set the course for a long-term programme of improvements to the Underground's safety management systems.

  I have discussed the report with the chairman of London Regional Transport, Mr. Wilfrid Newton. I expressed my serious concern at some of the findings and made clear that decisive and sustained action is required. Mr. Newton has responded positively and quickly.
  503
  London Underground's written response shows that it accepts, in whole or part, all but one of the 71 recommendations. London Underground does not accept, however, the recommendations that the board's safety committee should be chaired by the managing director. Although the managing director has line management responsibility for safety and the safety staff report directly to him, London Underground believes that the safety committee should be chaired by an independent non-executive director who, in accordance with one of Mr. Fennell's recommendations, has special responsibility for safety.

  The chairman of LRT has welcomed my proposal that the railway inspectorate should conduct a further survey in about 18 months' time. Meantime, the inspectorate will be monitoring progress closely through its programme of visits to stations and contacts with managers at all levels.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to review the road hump regulations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Consultation on new regulations offering significant relaxations to those of 1986 will begin on 24 May. A copy of the consultation letter will be placed in the Library of the House. We hope to make the new regulations in the autumn of this year.

  Road Assessment Studies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road assessment studies for South Yorkshire(a) have been undertaken during the last five years and (b) are to be carried out in the near future; which are now under consideration by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A major study of the A1 through the county was carried out in 1987. We plan to commission studies later this year to investigate the need for improved highway links between south Lancashire and Yorkshire and to look at the A57 from east of the M1 to the A1 (Worksop). These were announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" which has just been published.

  A47
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to commence improvements on the A47 trunk road at Skeffington bend in Leicestershire, as envisaged in his letter to the hon. Member for Harborough on 28 May 1987;

  (2) if he will give a timetable for the completion of the improvements needed to the A47 at Skeffington bend in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following the publication of draft orders in 1987, we have given careful consideration to the need for this scheme. We have concluded that the likely accident savings do not, at present, justify the costs involved. We must target our funds towards those schemes where the potential for reducing accidents is greatest. We shall keep the situation under review.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Government contribution to dial-a-ride for each year available to date.
  504
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Grants made by London Regional Transport to London dial-a-ride services are as follows:

  Year

  Grant £ million

  1986–87

  5·0

  1987–88

  6·0

  1988–89

  6·27

  1989–90

  7·27

  The grant for 1989–90 is over 40 per cent. higher in real terms than the grant of £4·2 million provided by the G LC in 1985–86 (the last year it funded these services).

  Naval Accidents
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the key statistics for naval accidents over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's annual publication "Casualties to Vessels and Accidents to Men" contains key statistics on casualties to merchant and fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom. Copies of CVAM from 1979 to 1987 are available in the Library. CVAM 1988 will be published within the next few months.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total cost of repairs and renewals on the Severn bridge at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  £44 million since 1984.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount collected in tolls on the Severn bridge at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total amount collected in tolls is estimated to be some £58 million up to March 1989.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total outstanding debt on the Severn bridge at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  £85·2 million at 31 March 1988.

  M1-M69 Junction
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects works to begin to improve the M1-M69 junction.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The expanded trunk road construction programme published in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" includes widening and junction improvements on the M1. A major improvement to junction 21 will be part of this.

  Work should start this financial year on an interim scheme at the M1-M69 interchange (junction 21 of the M1) to prevent peak time queuing on the M1.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many proposals he has received to set up training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.
  505
  Mr. Cope
  Twenty-two applications have been received by the national training task force which will review these proposals and forward its recommendations to me. This is an excellent response.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many proposals he has received from groups seeking to become training and enterprise councils; and when he expects to announce his decisions.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: Twenty two applications have been received by the national training task force. It will forward its recommendations to Ministers who will announce which TECs have been awarded development funding shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers on training and enterprise councils in the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 16 May 1989] : I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers in the south-east and throughout the country to our invitation to form training and enterprise councils (TECs).

  Since the launch of TECs on 10 March no fewer than 22 groups of senior employers from around the country have come forward to apply for TEC development funding, of which five applications are from employers in the south-east.

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs have been closed since his decision to reduce their number; where they were located; how many had been run by(a) jobcentres and (b) external agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between my announcements to the House on 27 January 1989 and 28 April 1989, 131 job clubs had closed. They were located in the following regions:

  Number

  Northern

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7

  East Midlands and Eastern

  20

  London and South East

  20

  South West

  21

  Wales

  5

  West Midlands

  34

  North West

  22

  Scotland

  1

  A total of 114 of these job clubs had been run by jobcentres and 17 by external agencies. Around 90 more closures are expected by 30 June 1989 in order to bring the network down to the 1,000 or so needed following the substantial and continuing fall in long-term unemployment.

  The number of job club places available in 1989–90 will be some 25 per cent. higher than the number of participants in the programme last year. I hope that long-term unemployed people will take advantage of the opportunities open to them to join this valuable programme which has already helped more than 150,000 back into work.

  Job Start
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have applied for job start allowance; how many have had their applications granted and refused; how many are currently receiving the allowance; and of those no longer receiving the allowance how long had they received it on average before termination, for Great Britain, and for each standard region.

  Mr. Lee
  In the period from July 1986 to March 1989, 41,676 people applied for the job start allowance. A total of 31,951 were accepted and 9,725 were rejected because they were not eligible. There are currently 3,989 people receiving the allowance.

  The information requested about how long people received the allowance before termination is not readily available. However, it is estimated that in 1988 two thirds of job start participants received the allowance for the full 26 weeks. People may receive the allowance for a shorter period for a number of reasons, including a pay increase beyond the limit allowed.

  New Businesses (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses in Derbyshire have registered for value added tax in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1986, the estimated number of new registrations for value added tax in Derbyshire was 2,500. The net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses in 1987 was 300, or 1·4 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Derbyshire are currently unemployed; and by what percentage this figure has decreased in the last year.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in Derbyshire was 30,391, a fall of 11,641, or 27·7 per cent., in the year since April 1988. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations affecting people aged under 18 years.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett),Official Report, 15 May, column 51, he will list the sources, authors, publishers, methodology of assessment, scope and time scale of study of the evidence that removal of wages councils for young people has resulted in increased job opportunities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The information sought by the hon. Member is almost entirely irrelevant to the evidence referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 15 May.

  Labour force survey data for 1986, 1987 and 1988 show an increase in the level of employment of young people

  507
  under 21 in the retail distribution and hotel and catering industries. There is also evidence from employers in wages council trades that they are more ready to offer young people employment. It is also relevant that during the past two years unemployment among those aged under 20 has fallen from 21 per cent. to just above 12 per cent.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement outlining the European Economic Community proposals for a social charter and the consequences for employers and employees if the Council approves the proposals; and if such proposals fall to be considered by majority vote or by unanimity in the Council.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 22 May 1989] : Commissioner Papandreou outlined at a press conference in Brussels on 17 May proposals for a charter of basic social rights. We are still awaiting a formal text from the Commission, but I have placed in the Library a copy of the press release.

  The Commission announced that it would be putting forward a proposal for a formal declaration which would contain some generalised statements and invite the Commission to draw up an action programme by June 1990. The action programme would include proposals for series of regulations mainly in the employment and industrial relations field.

  As the Commission is proposing a declaration by heads of state or Government, it follows that all heads of state or Government will have to agree to it. The voting arrangements for the specific proposals on particular issues depend on the subject matter and legal treaty base; in our view many will fall to be adopted by unanimity.

  As far as we can tell from the information that we have on the proposals so far, the consequences will include retrictions on the freedom of employers and employees to negotiate the agreements that suit them both; reductions in the flexibility of the labour market; and the slowing down of economic growth and of the creation of jobs.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the expenditure, by economic region, by private industry on training.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 15 May 19891: This information is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated expenditure by private industry on training.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 15 May 19891: It is estimated from a study by management consultants to be published by the autumn, that in Great Britain in 1986–87 (the latest year for which information is available) about £11 billion was invested by private industry in training.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures currently exist for quantifying the amount of money spent on training by private industry.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 15 May 1989] : Estimates of the amount of money spent on training by private industry
  508
  can be obtained only from detailed surveys of employers. The latest such survey was carried out in 1987 providing information for the year 1986–87.

  Tyneside Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to announce his assessment of the Tyneside training and enterprise council submission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The submission by the Tyneside TEC steering group will be considered by a panel of members of the national training task force shortly. Ministers will consider its recommendations and will announce which TECs have been awarded development funding shortly thereafter.

  Income Support
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of whether the present income support scheme gives sufficient incentive to retrain mature people with families.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All trainees on employment training (the Government's main programme to give unemployed people, particularly the long-term unemployed, the skills they need to compete in the jobs market) receive an allowance which amounts to £10 more than their previous weekly benefit entitlement. Help is also given with travel costs and certain other expenses. In contrast to the situation under some previous programmes therefore, all ET trainees secure a higher income than if they had remained unemployed and claiming benefit.

  I am satisfied that these arrangements offer a clear incentive to unemployed people whatever their family circumstances to undertake training. Of course we keep this and other aspects of the scheme under review.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the number of strikes and days lost in the dock labour scheme ports in each year since 1959; and what are the comparable figures for non-scheme ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 8 May 1989] : The number of stoppages and days lost in the dock labour scheme ports in each year since 1959 are listed in the table. Comparable figures for non-scheme ports are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, national figures for working days lost per thousand employees from stoppages in all industries and services are also listed, alongside figures for dock labour scheme ports. There is a minor difference in coverage between these two series, because the figures for all industries and services exclude stoppages involving fewer than 10 workers or lasting less than one day, where the total number of working days lost is 100 or less.

  Year

  Dock Labour Scheme ports

  All industries and services

  Number of stoppages

  Number of days lost

  Days lost per 1,000 employees

  Days lost per 1,000 employees

  1959

  70

  39,322

  547

  246

  1960

  128

  245,813

  3,388

  138

  1961

  97

  155,346

  2,167

  137

  509

  Year

  Dock Labour Scheme ports

  All industries and services

  Number of stoppages

  Number of days lost

  Days lost per 1,000 employees

  Days lost per 1,000 employees

  1962

  76

  93,949

  1,406

  258

  1963

  104

  35,850

  555

  78

  1964

  141

  130,637

  2,039

  99

  1965

  130

  106,037

  1,628

  127

  1966

  147

  108,895

  1,742

  103

  1967

  172

  571,578

  9,625

  122

  1968

  284

  74,439

  1,316

  207

  1969

  376

  242,220

  4,593

  303

  1970

  374

  656,100

  13,985

  489

  1971

  288

  159,402

  3,504

  612

  1972

  309

  854,132

  20,708

  1,080

  1973

  241

  159,788

  4,631

  317

  1974

  138

  75,090

  2,171

  647

  1975

  156

  299,884

  8,915

  265

  1976

  111

  27,959

  900

  146

  1977

  159

  76,783

  2,605

  448

  1978

  100

  59,519

  2,075

  413

  1979

  108

  88,278

  3,282

  1,273

  1980

  90

  116,813

  4,769

  521

  1981

  119

  99,421

  4,729

  195

  1982

  189

  105,231

  6,268

  248

  1983

  60

  91,501

  6,254

  178

  1984

  188

  259,950

  19,395

  1,278

  1985

  43

  4,826

  396

  298

  1986

  28

  6,074

  544

  89

  1987

  41

  6,616

  644

  162

  1988

  24

  10,663

  1,105

  1164

  1 Provisional.

  Sources: Figures for Dock Labour Scheme provided by the National Dock Labour Board.

  Figures for all industries and services provided by the Employment Department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Procedure Committee
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing the implementation of the second report from the Select Committee on Procedure on private Members' time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Apart from exchanges in the House during business questions, I have received one letter supporting the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure and none opposing them. I hope that there will be an opportunity before the end of this Session for the House to debate the report.

  Bills
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those personal Bills which received Royal Assent in each Session since 1970.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  1974–75: James Hugh Maxwell (Naturalisation) [Lords]

  1979–80: Edward Berry and Doris Eileen Ward (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  1981–82: Hugh Small and Norma Small (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  1981–82: John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  1984–85: Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  1986–87: George Donald Evans and Deborah Jane Evans (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  510

  1986–87: John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information and assistance is available to individuals desirous of promoting a personal Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Personal Bills may be promoted only through a registered parliamentary agent, duly authorised by Mr. Speaker. A list of agents is available from the Private Bill Office.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many personal Bills were introduced in each Session since 1970; how many received Royal Assent; and what percentage the latter represents of the former.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Since 1970 seven personal Bills have been introduced, all of which have received Royal Assent.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the occasions when Bills have been committed(a) under Standing Order No. 90(1) and (b) under Standing Order No. 90(2) in each Session since 1970, together with the title of each Bill.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Bills committed under Standing Order No. 90(1)

  Names of Bills

  Number in each Session

  1970–71

  10

  Animals [Lords]

  Criminal Damage [Lords]

  Land Registration and Land Charges [Lords]

  Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) [Lords]

  Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) [Lords]

  Mines Management [Lords]

  Pool Competitions

  Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separation [Lords]

  Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage

  Wild Creatures and Forest Laws [Lords]

  1971–72

  6

  British Library [Lords]

  Children [Lords]

  Field Monuments [Lords]

  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) [Lords]

  Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees

  Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) [Lords]

  1972–73

  3

  Government Trading Funds

  Guardianship [Lords]

  Nature Conservancy Council [Lords]

  1973–74

  5

  Biological Weapons

  International Organisations (Land)

  Land Registry [Lords]

  Rabies

  Unit Pricing

  1974

  1

  Road Traffic [Lords]

  1974–75

  8

  Arbitration [Lords]

  Biological Standards

  Diseases of Animals [Lords]

  Industrial and Provident Societies [Lords]

  Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants [Lords]

  511

  Names of Bills

  Number in each Session

  Limitation [Lords]

  Local Land Charges [Lords]

  Reservoirs [Lords]

  1975–76

  8

  Companies (No. 2) [Lords]

  Education (School-leaving Dates) [Lords]

  Insolvency [Lords]

  International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs

  [Lords]

  Land Drainage (Amendment) [Lords]

  Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) [Lords]

  National Health Service (Vocational Training) [Lords]

  Rating (Charity Shops) [Lords]

  1976–77

  5

  Administration of Justice [Lords]

  General Rate (Public Utilities) [Lords]

  Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) [Lords]

  Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) [Lords]

  Torts (Interference with Goods) [Lords]

  1977–78

  6

  Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts [Lords]

  Gun Barrel Proof [Lords]

  House of Commons (Administration)

  Medical [Lords]

  State Immunity

  Suppression of Terrorism [Lords]

  1978–79

  3

  Arbitration [Lords]

  Consents to Prosecutions

  Forestry [Lords]

  1979–80

  1

  Insurance Companies [Lords]

  1980–81

  .4

  International Organisations [Lords]

  Merchant Shipping [Lords]

  Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) [Lords]

  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) [Lords]

  1981–82

  9

  Administration of Justice [Lords]

  Currency

  Duchy of Cornwall Management (Committee discharged)

  Fire Service College Board (Abolition) [Lords]

  Legal Aid [Lords]

  Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences)

  Reserve Forces [Lords]

  Stock Transfer

  Taking of Hostages [Lords]

  1982–83

  7

  Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol)

  Currency

  Dentists [Lords]

  International Transport Convention [Lords]

  Marriage [Lords]

  Merchant Shipping [Lords]

  Plant Varieties [Lords]

  1983–84

  6

  Foreign Limitation Periods [Lords]

  Fosdyke Bridge [Lords]

  Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) [Lords]

  Occupiers' Liability [Lords]

  Repatriation of Prisoners [Lords]

  Somerset House [Lords]

  512

  Names of Bills

  Number each Session

  1984–85

  4

  Child Abduction and Custody [Lords]

  Enduring Powers of Attorney [Lords]

  Industrial Development [Lords]

  Insurance (Fees)

  1985–86

  8

  British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation

  Commonwealth Development Corporation [Lords]

  Crown Agents (Amendment)

  Education (No. 2)

  Land Registration [Lords]

  Outer Space [Lords]

  Patents, Designs and Marks [Lords]

  Public Trustee and Administration of Funds [Lords]

  1986–87

  5

  Chevening Estate [Lords]

  Minors' Contracts [Lords]

  Recognition of Trusts [Lords]

  Reverter of Sites [Lords]

  Territorial Sea [Lords]

  1987–88

  3

  Duchy of Lancaster

  Foreign Marriage (Amendment) [Lords]

  Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) [Lords]

  1988–89, to 19 May

  5

  Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) [Lords]

  Human Organ Transplants

  Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provision) [Lords]

  National Maritime Museum [Lords]

  Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement)

  Bills committed under Standing Order No. 90(2)

  No Bills have been committed under Standing Order No. 90(2).

SCOTLAND

  St. Mungo's Primary School, Glasgow
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has received from parents of hearing impaired children who attend the unit at St. Mungo's primary school, Glasgow; whether he will take action to ensure medical tests are made to allay parental anxiety about children having inhaled asbestos dust; whether the parents made him aware of their concern about(a) the lack of specialist staff, (b) the standard of equipment, and (c) the physical conditions under which their children are taught; and if he will make a statement on (i) the opportunities available to him to seek improvements, and (ii) whether his Department will make additional funding available to the education authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this unit lies with Strathclyde regional council. Parents of children who attend the unit have written to my right hon. and learned Friend and inquiries are being made into the complaints that they have raised. I shall arrange to send the hon. Member a copy of the reply which will be sent to the parents shortly.

  Fraud
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for the number of prosecutions for(a) tax fraud and (b) social security fraud and the total sums of money involved for the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  (a) There were 26 prosecutions in Scotland for tax fraud, involving a minimum sum of £420,000, in the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  (b) 986 persons were proceeded against in the Scottish courts for social security fraud in the period from 10 February 1988 to 28 February 1989. The cost of social security fraud in these cases is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for the Scottish ambulance service(a) the total number of vehicles owned and (b) the total number of man hours worked for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of vehicles owned

  Man hours worked (excluding overtime)

  1979

  n/a

  3,240,640

  1980

  968

  3,382,080

  1981

  968

  3,425,760

  1982

  965

  3,463,200

  1983

  967

  3,531,840

  1984

  977

  3,527,680

  1985

  988

  3,577,600

  1986

  1,007

  3,627,520

  1987

  1,004

  3,642,080

  1988

  1,011

  3,721,120

  1989

  1,051

  3,704,844

  The decrease in the man hours worked in 1989 is a result of the reduction of one hour in the working week which was an integral part of the 1988 ambulance men's pay agreement.

  In the year ending 31 March 1989 a total of 234,156 hours overtime was worked. Figures for overtime worked are not readily available for earlier years.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure for the Scottish ambulance service for each year since 1979 at 1979 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total expenditure for the Scottish ambulance service since 1979 at constant 1979 prices, calculated by applying the gross domestic product deflator, is as follows:

  Year Ending 31 March

  Expenditure £

  1979

  12,865,100

  1980

  15,104,623

  1981

  14,299,108

  1982

  14,334,212

  1983

  14,237,182

  1984

  14,530,689

  1985

  15,444,525

  514

  Year Ending 31 March

  Expenditure £

  1986

  15,214,675

  1987

  16,596,507

  1988

  17,467,219

  1989

  n/a

  Doctors (Crown Indemnity)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the cost of the proposed Crown indemnity for doctors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The NHS in Scotland currently spends about £3 million per year on a scheme for reimbursing two thirds of the costs of the medical defence organisation subscriptions of hospital and community doctors and dentists. The cost of providing an NHS indemnity is expected to be comparable.

  Teachers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of teachers in Scotland leave the profession within five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report each parliamentary constituency in Scotland where electoral registrations have declined by more than 4 per cent, between 1987 and 1989, together with the size of the decline in each case in percentage and absolute figures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Constituency

  Numerical change

  Percentage change

  Aberdeen North

  -3,147

  -4·9

  Aberdeen South

  -4,347

  -6·9

  Edinburgh Central

  -2,688

  -4·5

  Glasgow Cathcart

  -2,130

  -4·3

  Glasgow Garscadden

  -3,658

  -7·5

  Glasgow Govan

  -2.243

  -4·4

  Glasgow Maryhill

  -2,359

  -4·5

  Glasgow Pollok

  -2,524

  -4·9

  Glasgow Provan

  -3,308

  -7·5

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  -2,380

  -4·1

  Glasgow Springburn

  -3,379

  -6·5

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  -2,878

  -4·9

  Paisley South

  -2,239

  -4·3

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Forestry Commission to notify all local authorities of the outcome of applications for forestry planting grant within their area of jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the Forestry Commission's normal practice to notify local authorities of the outcome of those planting grant applications over which they have been consulted, where objections have
  515
  been raised. The Commission also informs local authorities of the outcome in other cases where they have requested that this should be done. I consider this to be a fair and reasonable procedure and I am not persuaded that it would be right for me to add to the Commission's administrative costs by instructing it to notify local authorities of the outcome of all grant applications as a matter of course.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to require local authorities to prepare regional indicative forestry strategies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. My right hon. and learned Friend has already made it clear that it will be for each local authority in Scotland to decide whether or not an indicative forestry strategy is needed for its area. The situation including the potential for new planting varies considerably from one region to another.

  Fishing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of imposing precautionary total allowable catches on west of Scotland plaice, monkfish and megrims; and what scientific evidence is available on stocks of these species.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Precautionary total allowable catches (TACs) are fixed for species for which there is insufficient scientific data to set a full analytical TAC, primarily to protect stocks from serious damage by over-exploitation. Concern has been expressed that some precautionary TACs may be unduly restrictive. Fisheries departments are looking at the situation and will consider whether to approach the European Commission to seek an appropriate increase in the level of precautionary TACs.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Fisheries Department expect to publish fund proposals for a revised pressure stock licensing scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Fisheries departments are considering comments received from the industry in response to the consultation paper issued last year on possible amendments to the United Kingdom licensing system. The comments received raised a number of wider issues and further consultations seem likely to be necessary before final decisions can be taken.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the impact of Scottish fishermen's earnings of the quota cuts introduced in the current year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Earnings are determined by a number of factors which include the quantity and quality of landings, prices and costs. Quota cuts influence only one of these elements and it is not possible to separate out their impact.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate interest rate charges paid by the Scottish fishing fleet in the first six months of(a) 1989 and (b) 1988; and what is his estimate of the impact this has had on the financial position of the fleet.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The capital structure and sources of funding for investment in the Scottish fishing fleet reflect 516
  the pattern of share ownership and the mixture of business and way of life that characterises the fishing industry. In consequence it is not possible to estimate the level of charges or the impact on the financial position of the fleet.

  Fish Processing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the current fisheries suppliers' position on the processing sector.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lower catch levels, largely associated with reduced fishing opportunities but also as a result of adverse weather conditions earlier in the year, have caused problems for the fish processing sector and for fishermen. Unlike the latter, however, the processors can make up the shortfall in supplies by purchases on the international market, much of which can be brought into the United Kingdom at concessionary rates of duty In addition the processing sector is looking to create a wider range of added value products, taking increased quantities of pelagic fish when available and also turning to species such as farmed salmon. These are encouraging developments.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on recent employment patterns in the Scottish fish processing section and his assessment of its future prospects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The gradual shift away from highly labour intensive operations to increased mechanisation, combined with seasonal considerations and the industry's use of temporary employees, makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions on recent employment patterns in the Scottish fish processing industry. The future prospects for the industry remain good and this is reflected in the fact that since 1985 investment in the industry has totalled around £20 million including EC grant aid of some £5 million.

  Broadleaved Woodland
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the Forestry Commission's review of the broadleaved woodland grant scheme will consider fully the financial aspects of grants, their means of application and purpose, and the guidelines for the management of broadleaved woodlands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The review of the policy for broadleaved woodlands is under way and covers the aspects referred to by the hon. Member.

  Farm Cottages
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why Scottish farmers are receiving poll tax demands at the standard charge rate in respect of empty farm cottages.

  Mr. Lang
  Everybody who is liable to pay the standard charge in respect of a property will receive a demand notice from the appropriate levying authority. However, if the property is unoccupied and unfurnished and the person liable for the charge has notified the levying authority under section 10(8A)(b) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 that this is the case, no
  517
  charge will be payable in respect of that property for three months or such longer period as the levying authority has determined, subject to the other provisions of section 10 of the Act. These arrangements apply in respect of owners and long-term tenants of empty farm cottages. We have however announced our intention to remove these properties from the standard community charge arrangements and have consulted on proposals for doing so. We are studying the responses to that consultation and hope to be in a position shortly to announce what the new arrangements will be.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish(a) what information he has on the number of seasonally let farm cottages in Scotland, (b) the average occupancy of let in terms of weeks and (c) the percentage of annual income attributable to Scottish farmers from holiday letting of farm cottages.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information sought is not available.

  Prisons (Firearms)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority firearms and ammunition can be requisitioned by the governor of a Scottish prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 May 1989] : The carrying or use of firearms in or on prison service property is normally strictly forbidden. Permission to do so may, however, be granted—to control vermin on prison service agricultural and horticultural land—but only by means of prior written authorisation from the director of the Scottish prison service and subject to the issue by the police of a permit for the use by a named prison officer of such a firearm.

  Prison Staff(Boots)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pairs of boots for staff were ordered for Glenochil penal establishments in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 May 1989] : The number of pairs of boots and shoes issued to personnel at Her Majesty's prison and the young offenders institution Glenochil over the past five years was:

  Boots

  Shoes

  1984–85

  11

  12

  1985–86

  7

  4

  1986–87

  5

  10

  1987–88

  4

  5

  1988–89

  12

  Nil

  All eligible prison staff are provided with free issue footwear or are paid a boot or shoe allowance for the purchase of approved footwear.

  Mrs. Margaret Sinclair (Minister's Visit)
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Information Office was involved in any way in arranging the visit and subsequent press coverage involving the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), to the home of Mrs. Margaret Sinclair of Stirling on Sunday 14 May; and whether any member of the Scottish Information Office staff attended this visit.
  518
  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 19 May 1989] : The Scottish Information Office did not arrange the visit and no member of SIO staff was present at it. The SIO arranged for media representatives to be told of the visit, and issued a press statement on behalf of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and education.

  Dr. William Young
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if every right hon. and hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency will be able to arrange for an official from the Scottish Home and Health Department to discuss with each general practitioner in their constituency their concern for the future of the general practitioner service, following the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), instructing an official from the Scottish Home and Health Department to contact Dr. William Young of Stirling;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which an official of the Scottish Home and Health Department has been instructed to contact Dr. William Young of Stirling following his commenting on the proposed changes affecting general practitioners and the National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 May 1989] : On 14 May it was reported in the press that Dr. Young's views on the implications of the Government's proposals for the reform of the NHS had dismayed two of his patients. They were said to be particularly alarmed by the statements attributed to Dr. Young that all GPs would be given drug budgets from 1991; that if they exceeded them the money would be clawed back the next year; and that patients requiring expensive treatment might have to come off his list on the ground of cost. I wrote to Dr. Young on 15 May expressing my concern about these reports pointing out that when indicative prescribing budgets are introduced in Scotland in 1992 they will reflect the health and age of the patients on the GPs list and that more money will be allowed for the chronically sick and the elderly. If, nevertheless, the budget turns out to be not enough for the cost of treatment which the doctor's patients justifiably require, the budget will be reviewed and the doctor will not be penalised. There should therefore be no question of a doctor being unable to prescribe for a sick person because he or she has run out of money or of removing patients from the list because of the cost of their treatment.

  Because these particular events have been drawn to the attention of the general public in this way and were likely to cause widespread alarm, I released my letter to Dr. Young to the press. I also asked a medical officer in the Scottish Home and Health Department to meet Dr. Young to discuss his interpretation of the Government's plans. It will not be necessary for similar arrangements to be made in respect of every GP in Scotland as I have already been in direct contact with each of them to supply them with the full facts of the Government's plans for making the National Health Service in Scotland even better than it is at present.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of trainees on each employment training scheme operating in Scotland and give the name of each scheme and the total allowances paid on each scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1989] : Information about the number of people in training with individual training managers employment training in Scotland can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The names and addresses of training managers are held in the "Employment Training Directory of Training Agents and Training Managers", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. Information about the amounts of trainee allowances paid to trainees with individual training managers is not available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places for trainees has each employment training scheme management agency in Scotland contracted to fill for each month since the inception of the scheme; and what percentage of these places have actually been tilled in each case on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of fraud his Department has detected among employment training scheme management agencies and employers in Scotland; what sums were involved; and how many prosecutions have proceeded.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: There have been no such cases.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employment training scheme management agencies and employers in Scotland have been terminated because of fraud or other malpractice.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: None.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the steps taken to ensure that employment training scheme management agencies and employers in Scotland do not continue to receive an allowance from his Department after trainees have left the scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: Claims for training fees submitted by training managers are subject to checks both within Training Agency area offices and at the training manager's premises. The checks include the comparison of claims with individual trainee records and information notified to unemployment benefit offices.

  Roads
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total moneys received by the Scottish Office from the European regional development fund in each of the past five years; and what percentage of these was spent on road improvements, listing the projects completed and projects currently under construction.
  520
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: The following awards have been obtained by the Scottish Office for projects and programmes in Scotland:

  Award £ million

  1984

  103

  1985

  69

  1986

  84

  1987

  93

  1988

  95

  444

  Some £109 million, almost 25 per cent., of the awards have been for road improvements and new construction. It is not feasible to list all 250-plus roads projects but some significant examples are:

  Award £ million

  Edinburgh City Bypass

  6·3

  Realignment of A71 near Kilmarnock

  5·9

  Eastern Distributor Road—Stirling

  2·4

  Inverness Inner Relief Road Phase 2

  2·3

  Northern Distributor Road—East Kilbride

  1·1

  A82 Improvement—Phase 1—Loch Lomondside

  1·7

  A836 Lairg to Auction Mart—Sutherland

  0·9

  A95 Broomhill Road Improvement—Grantown-on-Spey

  0·5

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking in order to support increased manufacturing exports from Scottish industries.

  Mr. Lang
  An extensive and comprehensive package of support is available to industry in Scotland under the enterprise initiative, which is administered by my Department. This includes selective financial assistance for investment projects in the assisted areas, and the consultancy initiatives which can provide firms with financial support towards the costs of specialist consultancy in a number of key management functions. In addition, the Scottish export office of my Department provides a wide range of advice, information and assistance under the export initiative, to help Scottish companies expand into export markets or develop their existing overseas business.

  Glasgow Garden Festival
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with progress on the after use of Glasgow garden festival site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. The various elements of the after use plan are currently being discussed with the planning authority. I expect these to make a permanent contribution to the regeneration of Glasgow.

  Press Material (Perth City Halls)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press officers from his Department were
  521
  involved in the preparation and distribution of press material within the Perth city halls during the period from 10 to 12 May.
  522
  Mr. Rifkind
  No press officers from my Department were involved in the preparation and distribution of press material within Perth city halls during the period 10 to 12 May.

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 Defence Expenditure
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the latest estimate of Soviet defence expenditure, and to what extent this has increased or decreased since Mr. Gorbachev came to power.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Soviet Union has never published complete details of its defence expenditure, but we estimate it to be around 15 to 17 per cent. of its GDP. Mr. Gorbachev announced at the Guildhall on 7th April that Soviet defence expenditure would fall by more than 14 per cent. in 1989–90. But he provided no figures. So we have no baseline on which to calculate.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not only she but everyone in this House will be sad that there is still so little evidence of deeds being done to put into effect the honeyed words which have been spoken now for nearly four years? Is it right to suggest that 14 per cent. is a big decrease? It is one-seventh of the Soviet Union's present expenditure. So the 16 per cent. of the GNP which the Soviets currently spend on defence expenditure will be reduced to around 14 per cent. That compares with an average in NATO of 4 per cent. So the ratio of GNP spent on the Soviet forces is three-and-a-half times our own.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. There is a difficulty in making calculations in that we do not have any specific figures on which to base our calculations. In his Guildhall speech on 7th April Mr. Gorbachev claimed that figures would be published shortly, and that the delay was caused by problems arising from the non-convertability of the rouble. We are hoping that some concrete figures will be published shortly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister go further and confirm that Mr. Gorbachev has been much more ready and open to publish precise figures, and that when he published his figures he conceded that the difference as regards defence expenditure was rather greater than his predecessors had said? Does the noble Baroness recall that yesterday she said that negotiations betwen NATO and the Warsaw Pact are progressing cordially? That was enouraging news. Will the Minister say whether there is any danger that that progress could be affected by the current diplomatic fracas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as regards specific matters, NATO is calling for parity between the two alliances in particular categories of equipment such as tanks, artillery and armoured troop carriers within the whole of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. We are also proposing limits on the size of the armed forces of any individual country and on the numbers of forces which can be stationed outside national territories. The figures outlined by Mr. Gorbachev more recently on 11th May during the visit of the United States' Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, show a response in detail to NATO's proposals. I believe I mentioned those figures yesterday.
Regarding overall numbers of weapons systems in Europe, the Soviets have accepted our figures for tanks—that is, 20,000 per side—and armoured troop carriers at 28,000 per side. We still have to make progress on artillery because the Soviet suggestion of 24,600 per side does not tally with our figure of 16,500. However, I believe that in the cordial atmosphere in which the discussions are taking place in Vienna, we shall be able to make further progress.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, as politicians go, Mr. Gorbachev's words have been followed by deeds to a remarkable extent as regards Afghanistan, elections, human rights Namibia, disarmament proposals and unilateral withdrawal of tanks from Eastern Germany? One after the other, his statements have borne fruit. Why then should we not take very seriously his statement that within a remarkably short period of time there will be a cut of one-seventh in defence expenditure?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are taking that statement seriously. We know that the whole matter of defence spending in the Soviet Union is under review. However, as yet we have no independent corroboration of any figures that have been put forward.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is there any evidence of any reduction in the Soviet Union's massive preparations for chemical and biological warfare?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, again that is a matter in respect of which we do not have any independent corroboration of the details. On chemical weapons, we are active in our negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive, verifiable worldwide ban. However, this is a complex issue, particularly in the area of verification.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is taking a percentage of the GDP a proper comparison of military expenditure, since 14 per cent. of the GDP of the Soviet Union, because of its lower standard of living, represents a limited amount—though an extremely high one—whereas 6 per cent. of the GDP of the United States of America is a much greater sum?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. That is one of our difficulties. As I said, until we have more specific

147
figures, which we are hopeful of getting, we are not able to make a more useful comparison.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, do my noble friend's figures include the very large sums spent in teaching every single school child military skills?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is another of our difficulties. Unless we know the method of calculation used by both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries we cannot comment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not much more pleasant to hear Soviet leaders boasting about arms cuts rather than arms increases? Would it not be better if, instead of denigrating their statements, we were to encourage many more of them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think that we have made it quite clear that we welcome any move to reduce both defence spending and arms production in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. That has been made very clear. I should like to confirm it further by emphasising that we welcome the advances that have been made.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last week we saw on our televisions and heard on our radios about tank reductions? What we were not told was that over the next two years the number of tanks will be reduced from 51,000 to 47,000 compared with a total of 16,500 among all the NATO countries. That shows the tremendous Soviet preponderance in tanks, and their production is continuing or even increasing, which is a rather alarming sign.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. That is why we have been pressing for parity. The figures that I referred to outlined by Mr. Gorbachev on 11th May are a step in the right direction, but we envisage that reduction to those levels will take some six years or so. However, the Soviet acceptance, especially of the tank figures, is a major step forward and, indeed, a vindication of our approach in pressing for parity.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in view of the extraordinary number of options that have been put forward by Mr. Gorbachev and been followed up, why are we so slow and so diffident about making similar concessions on our side to show that we accept the spirit of Mr. Gorbachev's approach and want to respond in similar vein?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, figures such as those quoted by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing about the comparative numbers of offensive armaments speak for themselves. We are making cuts and, not only at the two meetings which are currently taking place in Vienna but also at the approaching NATO summit, we shall no doubt be looking at the matter again.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that bears like honey? Does she not therefore agree also that it is the hope of us all that the honeyed words will become honeyed deeds?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only agree with that sentiment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness prepared to accept that in the past few 100 years very many European nations—the French, the Dutch and the Germans—have endeavoured to invade this country but never the Russians, and indeed we have invaded their country without just cause? Does she agree that in the last war they were very reliable allies of the United Kingdom? Therefore, despite the evil regime which was created in 1918, now that Mr. Gorbachev is trying to introduce a spirit of freedom and democracy (which he cannot do overnight) ought not our Government to encourage and help him in every way possible?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the Government are taking every step available to them to show a more open spirit. I say only that in relation to arms reduction this is tempered with a little caution.
Lord Annan: My Lords, while sympathising with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, in his wish to draw to our attention the great discrepancy in forces, is it not possible that the marshals of the Soviet army are at least as tenacious as our own generals and admirals in opposing large cuts in the forces under their command?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, indeed, I am sure that they are very conservative in their approach.

Victoria and Albert Museum: Hoardings
2.48 p.m.
Lord Reilly Lord Reilly asked Her Majesty's Government:
By whose authority six advertising hoardings have been erected in front of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, application was made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in December 1987 and consent was granted in October 1988.
Lord Reilly: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to ask him two questions. First, does he think that it is appropriate for a rich nation to depend on such low grade commercial devices for the protection of a museum containing the world's finest collection of artefacts? Secondly, will the same solution be adopted when the time comes to clean the Victoria Tower of this palace?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, yes, I do think that it is appropriate. As for his second question concerning

149
the Victoria Tower, that is a matter for the Government, whereas the V&A is not.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if those posters have to do with fund-raising, has the noble Lord seen the reports of the speech made by the director of the V&A last night at the National Art Collections Fund? She said there that Government lack of funding has now meant that the museum's finances have reached a crisis. Since the new Treasury salary awards, the museum does not even have enough money to pay the salaries out of its inadequate grants. Do we intend to do something about the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government's record on arts funding in general is very good. There has been an increase in real terms of 52·6 per cent. and, for museums and galleries in particular, an increase in real terms of 46·9 per cent.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the great objection to those poster hoardings is not that they are advertisement hoardings, but that they are badly and hideously designed? Will he give us some indication as to when the cleaning will begin, when it will end, and, above all, that, as soon as it is completed, those eyesores will be removed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that it would be a matter of great debate as to whether or not the advertising hoardings are more or less ugly than the scaffolding, canvasing and tarpaulin that will cover the building while it is being cleaned. The cleaning operation will take between 15 and 18 months and, at the end of that period, the advertising hoardings will come down.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, declaring a non-financial personal interest as a trustee of the V&A, may I ask the Minister whether he will accept that it is better for the public to have an opportunity after some 18 months to see the beauty and true splendour of the façade of the V&A, which would not be available without those funds? Does he further accept that, however horrible the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, finds them, the scaffolding would not be particularly attractive either:
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord. I think that he has spoken most appropriately in pointing out that when the cleaning is over the building will look considerably better.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it true that the scaffolding which those hoardings are meant to hide is not even up yet? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how long it will be before the scaffolding is erected and whether the period will be extended at the other end so that people will become so accustomed to the hoardings that they will just remain there. Perhaps he will also tell us whether consideration could be given to a Government advertisement being put on one of the hoardings, stating, "These advertisements were made possible by the unhappy lack of funds given by the Government to provide for the proper maintenance of this museum".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the cleaning work will start in the near future. I find it extraordinary that noble Lords can complain about a so-called lack of funding—which I have proved is not the case—and at the same time criticise a museum for using such an imaginative scheme to raise extra resources. I believe that the trustees should be congratulated.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the V&A is no longer the Government's responsibility, will he confirm that, when the Government disestablished the V&A, as it were, it was no part of their intention to escape responsibility for it? Will he further confirm that, if that had been their intention, they would have endowed it, as they are doing in the case of Ham and Osterley, although I do not know whether they are doing so adequately? In that case, they would have endowed it, but they did not do so. They accepted responsibility for it and continued to fund it. Surely the Minister cannot say that it was nothing to do with the Government, therefore, and the question then is whether the funding is adequate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord. I meant to say that the day-to-day running of the museum was not up to the Government, but up to the trustees.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fact that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has given permission to allow the setting up of the very unattractive hoardings outside the Victoria and Albert Museum will create a precedent for other people to apply to the borough to clutter up our pavements, which are already cluttered up with litter? Does the noble Lord think that this should be a one-off and no more?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again, that is a matter for the local authority, but the hoardings were erected only following extensive consultations with local residents and the police.
Lord Annan: My Lords, when St. Paul's Cathedral was cleaned through, I believe, the initiative of the Ionian Bank and other financial institutions, no hoardings were put up to advertise the donors. While the donors are of course to be congratulated, does the Minister think that there has perhaps been some falling off of good taste in our society?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I simply think that the cleaning of St. Paul's was an entirely different matter.

School Governors: Training
2.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to assist local education authorities in the training of school governors.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are paying education support grant on nearly £5 million of expenditure on school governor training this year. Support will be available for a further two years at much the same level. We have supplied every governor with School Governors: A Guide to the Law and have sponsored national training materials. We are discussing with local education authorities and others the scope for further national initiatives.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may congratulate the Government on what they are doing as regards training school governors. However, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of a publication and also of a pack and a video on the training of governors produced by the Open University in conjunction with the National Association of Governors and Managers? Will he encourage local authorities to use that pack, video and publication?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. That new package, which was produced last month, aims to help governors understand their new role and to develop skills and confidence. It contains practical proposals for activity-based learning and complements the factual material available to governors in School Governors: A Guide to the Law.
Lord Somers: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the training of governors is of far less importance than the training of teaching staff? Does he also agree that governors are not likely to have a great influence on the future of the young, whereas the future of the young is very much in the hands of able and efficient staff?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, under the Education Reform Act of last year, governors will have a legal requirement to fulfil. They will have an extremely important task to perform. It is therefore essential that they be trained in that task as well as possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is not one of the important functions of governors to appoint suitable members of staff and sadly, where members of staff are irremediably unsuitable, to arrange for their redeployment or dismissal? Will part of the £5.3 million, which I am glad to hear that the Government are spending on training governors in the current year, be devoted to seeing that they are well equipped to carry out that and other functions relating to good order and discipline in schools?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. That will certainly be done.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware of two reports produced earlier this year by the National Foundation for Educational Research in which it draws attention to the difficulty in recruiting quality governors, particularly in inner cities? That problem is dealt with in the report entitled Reconstitution of Governing Bodies. The report which deals with local management of schools states that they are showing great scepticism about finding
152
governors in industry and commerce. Does the Minister think it possible that, if the Government thought again about paid leave for governors, the situation might change?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my information is completely different from that of the noble Baroness. The survey of all LEAs conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research shows that the establishment of the new governing bodies has been a tremendous success. The responses suggest that only about 1 per cent. of places are unfilled and most of those are for governors to be co-opted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree with me that for a governing body to be effective it should create and develop a healthy independence from its local education authority? However, that is not to say that it should not work with its local education authority. Does he further agree that too much training laid on only by the local education authority will thwart that independence and that there will not be a genuine interface between parents, school and local education authority?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all governors are entitled to training, but setting up a full training programme to meet the needs of over 300,000 people of widely differing levels of experience will take a little time. We hope that governors will help LEAs to design training programmes which are geared to their needs and take account of their priorities.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the Government have given any support to the principle of governors being fully reflective of the local community? Can he say whether the video to which he refers, which I hope will find its way into our Library at some time so that we can see it, says anything at all about the governors and their relationship to the local community and, in particular, aspects of what might be called their representative nature?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have not seen the video either and perhaps we can all look at it together at some stage. I can say to the noble Lord that the National Foundation for Educational Research has commissioned a sample survey of 500 schools and that survey will cover such matters as the number of candidates standing for election, and the gender, ethnic group and occupational background of the governors.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may return to a theme which has occupied me for a long time and ask yet again whether any thought has been given to the political complexion of governing bodies?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that thought is continually being given to that point.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say who is actually doing the training?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to ask the noble Lord to come and look at the video with us.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Viscount did not answer my previous question about whether there is any difficulty in recruiting governors—certainly it is apparent that there is difficulty in some cases. May I therefore ask him whether the Government will reconsider the question of paid leave for governors?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a matter for the local education authorities. To go back to the previous question, of course the training is being done by the LEAs.

Beaches: Tipping of Coal Waste
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to clean beaches affected by the tipping of coal waste.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, since 1979 we have approved a total of £2.5 million in derelict land grant in connection with the reclamation of dereliction associated with the tipping of colliery spoil on the beaches of the Durham coast. We remain committed to grant-aiding eligible schemes for the clearance of derelictions once tipping has ceased.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, amid all the current talk about the pollution of beaches, very little—indeed nothing—is being done to deal with what is the virtual destruction of beaches, not least, as he says, in the North East of England? I am very surprised that that amount comes under the derelict land grant, which is normally a separate source for this purpose. As the production of coal is a national requirement, do the Government feel any responsibility for the loss of such a valuable amenity in certain parts of the country, as I say, not least in the North East of England?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before answering I think it right and an opportune moment to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his continued concern over this matter both in another place and in this Chamber. Many people are grateful for the interest that he has shown. With regard to his first point, of course quite a lot is happening. As he will be aware, when the licence was renewed by MAFF last year it was on condition that British Coal report on alternative disposal options. These are now being considered by my department and my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, we believe that the polluter should pay and in this case that is not the taxpayer but British Coal.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are any other parts of our coast which are affected by this form of waste? Has any action been taken to warn the different regions of British Coal which may be doing the polluting that they ought to stop or that they will be fined if they do not stop?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the only active tipping at the moment—and I stand to be corrected—is in the North-East, but of course we are concerned about any pollution, whether on our beaches or elsewhere.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of sandy beaches on the North-East coast are being spoilt by this form of pollution? Will he be more specific and explain to the House the action that Her Majesty's Government have taken, alone or with the European Economic Community, against British Coal to stop them polluting the beaches? Prevention is far better than cure.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, about the licence that was issued by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year and the condition regarding British Coal reporting. We are considering the situation. There are alternatives but each one has difficulties, either from the environmental or the employment point of view. Of course this is not unique in respect of the environment because there are always other considerations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister rightly paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington for his long concern over this matter. However, will he acknowledge that such long concern is necessary because the Government talk but do not take any action? Will he now give a timetable for this consultation process and the enforcement of the licence to which he has referred?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree totally with the noble Lord's statement that the Government have not taken any action. Of course, the cry is always that the Government must do everything. However, the operator is British Coal. It has taken action. There has been quite a substantial reduction of tipping on the beaches and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement on our consultations very soon.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister is surely aware—is he not?—that when the principle of the polluter pays is answered by the National Coal Board, its action will literally put thousands of miners' jobs at risk. I appreciate the rather kind remarks the Minister made about my efforts but notwithstanding the money that is being spent and despite the fact that we have now had 17 Ministers from various government departments visiting them, is he not aware that the beaches are as black as ever?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord highlights the dilemma of this particular problem with the environment. There are other options. In fact, the Humberside County Council is investigating whether, as an alternative, the mined stone could be used to prevent erosion of the Holderness coast. However, that requires a great deal of testing work to be carried out. But as the noble Lord reminded the House, whatever option one looks at one finds serious problems there too.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Parking Bill
Report received.

Water Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 36 1M:
Before Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Restoration and maintenance of rivers
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the Authority to secure the effective execution of the provisions of this Chapter for the purpose of the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland waters.
(2) The duty to establish water quality objectives under section 102 below, shall be exercised subject to the requirements of this section.").
The noble Lord said: This is the amendment which I venture to call the Murdoch amendment. It arises partly from thinking on our part over many months and indeed a number of years. Specifically, we were encouraged to draft the amendment in this way by a leader in The Times on Wednesday 17th May which went further in attacking the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the water and sewerage industry than I have ever seen a Times
156
leader do in the past. I speak of "the Thunderer" which has normally supported a Conservative government through thick and thin.
Last week the Committee decided on a vote that vague timetables for the improvement of our drinking water quality were no longer acceptable. It decided that European Community standards for the improvement of drinking water should be met within a fixed period to be agreed with the Community—the Government are given until the end of the year by the Chamber to agree a timetable—or, failing such agreement, by 1st September 1993.
River water quality is a complementary issue. The two matters are closely linked. The water cycle involves both river water and drinking water. Unless we give our full attention both to drinking water quality and to river water quality then one or the other will suffer. We shall simply not achieve the objectives set by this Committee for the improvement of drinking water quality unless at the same time we set sufficiently strict objectives for the improvement of river water quality and see a reasonable and effective timetable for the achievement of those objectives.
River water quality objectives have been set for a very long time. What has been lacking is not objectives but achievement of objectives—actually getting things done. That was the impact of our amendment last week on drinking water quality. That is the thrust of our argument on river water quality this afternoon.
The Water Act 1973 contains the words that we believe should appear in this Bill. Section 1(2) of the Act states:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to secure the effective execution of so much of that policy"—
that is the national policy for water in England and Wales—
"as relates to the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland water".
That important and essential commitment is missing from this Bill. We shall be interested to have the Minister's views on the matter. According to The Times this is deliberate. The Times states that Ministers have privately conceded that the omission is not an oversight. Why is it not an oversight? Why are the Government consistently refusing to continue the policy which has been national policy for river water quality not only since 1973, when the Water Act was passed, also by a Conservative government, but also before that date? I suggest to the Committee that the Government are failing to do so because they do not want to commit themselves to an adequate programme, not only of objective, but also of achievement, to restore our rivers to a condition that should prevail.
It was 1968 when we started to monitor river quality on an effective basis. For the first time we had four classifications of river water quality—the first two, broadly "acceptable", the third "unacceptable", and the fourth "positively dangerous". I summarise them rather crudely. By 1980, that is, after 12 years of the classification system, there had been a certain improvement. Only

157
7 per cent. of our rivers fell into the fourth category of being positively dangerous. By 1987—the last year for which we have adequate data—the percentage of rivers in the fourth category had risen to 10 per cent. During the decade of this Government, our river water quality has become worse. That is not an acceptable basis on which to enter the experiment of privatisation.
If we are handing over responsibility for river water quality to a National Rivers Authority—and that is clearly right—and if we are handing over responsibility for our sewage undertakings, which are the biggest single polluter of our rivers, to private organisations, then we must have effective criteria, and effective enforcement of those criteria in order to overcome the worsening of river water quality experienced in the 1980s and to improve the situation. That is why we use in the amendment the words of the Water Act 1973:
"the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland water".
It is not a revolutionary proposal. A similar phrase was included in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which stated that the duty was to maintain, improve and develop the salmon trout fresh water and eel fisheries. That duty is not only found in the 1975 Act; it is transferred as a responsibility to the National Rivers Authority in Clause 137 of the Water Bill now before us. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 used a similar phrase. The water authorities were charged with exercising their function with respect to the proposals—that is for discharging any of their functions—as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and conservation of flora and fauna.
There are plenty of precedents for saying that it ought to be the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority not simply to maintain the position as it stands and to prevent it becoming even worse, but to improve it and to restore our rivers to the quality that we deserve and of which we can be proud. At present we find that the water authorities—I shall come to this in more detail when we deal with later amendments—are using the setting of objectives, and are being encouraged to do so by the Secretary of State, in such a way as to encourage worst practice rather than best practice.
I admit that this amendment is in general terms. We are proposing a new clause which is designed to put an overriding responsibility on the Secretary of State and the National Rivers Authority. That overriding responsibility is supposed to govern Clause 102 and to say that the duties to establish water quality objectives shall be exercised subject to the requirements of the new clause. I believe that that is the right way to approach the matter. Experience has taught us that unless we establish a clear principle which is understood by all concerned, then there will be consistent efforts by those who have a financial interest to minimise the impact of the attempts to improve river water quality. If this new clause is agreed to, that will not be possible.
I commend the amendment to the Committee. I believe that it is a proper complement to the decision taken last week on drinking water quality. If the Committee were to pass it now, then the
158
commitment of this Chamber to the environment and the consumer at the time of the privatisation of the water industry would be apparent to all concerned. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that we could see no harm in the amendment, indeed I think we all agree with the objectives behind it. But if we look at Clauses 100 to 112 we find that they contain elaborate provisions for carrying out just what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would like to be done. Listening to his speech, it seemed to me that he has used the amendment as a peg on which to hang a discussion of the allegations which were made in The Times last week. In that connection, I expect that many Members of the Committee saw the letter from my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard, the Minister of State, which appeared in The Times yesterday, and which refuted some of the allegations.
The fact is that there have been great improvements in the state of most of our rivers in the last 30 to 40 years. We can all speak with knowledge of particular rivers. I should say that the Great Ouse, which flows through my former constituency for some 30 miles, has been greatly improved over those years. So has the River Nene, in which I learnt to swim as a boy at school. However there are other rivers which undoubtedly need special attention. I myself asked a Question the year before last about the condition of the River Lea, which flows down through Hertfordshire into the London docks. When I went along it in August 1987 it was in a disgraceful state. I am told that it is not very much better now.
Having said that, let us not ignore either the achievements which have already taken place—about which I hope and expect we shall hear more from my noble friends on the Front Bench—nor what the Bill lays down. It is not for me to repeat to Members of the Committee the very lengthy and elaborate provisions which already exist. I do not think that we need to accept this amendment.
Lord Addington: We on these Benches whole heartedly support the amendment and the sentiment behind it. Effectively, as a Cabinet Minister the Secretary of State should have great responsibilities for the maintenance and improvement of the quality of our rivers in order to bring them back to the highest standard possible. It is altogether appropriate that the power is constituted at the very centre of government.
While there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, an improvement in the quality of some rivers, much of the information which I have received over the past year or so has suggested that that is not always the case and indeed the last river quality survey in England and Wales showed a net deterioration of our riverways over considerable distances. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it was in my speech on Second Reading.
Lord Renton: I should have added that it is a point in favour of what the noble Lord said, although it does not make his amendment any more necessary, that, however good the state of our rivers becomes, unfortunately we find them polluted from time to time by chemical discharges. There have been two serious discharges of aluminium chemicals in the West Country, causing a great deal of harm and consternation and making the water supply undrinkable. However, that there are such discharges does not alter the fact that there has been a general improvement in the state of our rivers over the years.
The Earl of Caithness: We begin today's proceedings with the pollution control provisions of the Bill, and the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, goes to their heart. Before I respond to it in detail I must necessarily refer more generally to the present position of water pollution control in England and Wales and to what in this Bill we are seeking to achieve. In view of the programme before us today I shall endeavour to keep my comments short. But for the assistance of the Committee there are a few points I must make.
First, let me comment on the state of our water resources. The state of our rivers and estuaries is not as good as any of us would like. Of course it is not—it never could be. But let it not be forgotten that they are overall of good quality. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the lack of achievement, the failure to get anything done. I have to remind the noble Lord and the Committee that we have the cleanest rivers of any country in the European Community, with 95 per cent. in good or fair condition. That compares with 75 per cent. in Europe. But of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we wish to improve them even further. That is what much of the Bill is about.
Secondly, let no one claim that the Government are being miserly in this regard. It was after all this Government who initiated and are carrying forward the enormous investment programme to restore the Mersey, which, in its scale and significance, must have few parallels anywhere in the world. We have further announced a £1 billion programme to overcome decades of neglect in our sewage treatment works. Protecting our environment is expensive and we all know that it is only through the improvement in our economy that we have been able to commit such expenditure to resolving the problems.
However it is not only in that respect that this Government have, by comparison with many of their predecessors and particularly the last Labour Government, a proud record in this area. That record shows itself quite clearly in the area of legislation. It was, after all, this Government which, between 1983 and 1987, implemented Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, enacted by a Labour Government in 1974 but then left to moulder in the cupboard. In this Bill we now bring before the House perhaps the broadest and most substantial legislative measure for water pollution control ever undertaken.
What, then, are we doing? In implementing Part II of the Control of Pollution Act we did a number of important things. We made the coverage of effluent discharge consent controls more or less general; we
160
introduced public involvement in the setting of those consents; and we introduced public registers and the unrestricted right of private prosecution for pollution offences.
These were important steps forward. But we recognised then that when the legislative opportunity arose we should go further. That is what, after extensive consultation and debate, we are now doing in the Bill.
Four changes of great significance are involved. First, as noble Lords have discussed, in establishing the NRA we are for the first time establishing a national water pollution control agency, able to act independently of the conflicts of interest inherent in present arragements. Secondly, we are moving beyond a legislative framework based almost entirely on the control of effluent discharges to a broader framework for managing the quality of our water through the statutory quality objective system. Thirdly, we are strengthening that effluent discharge control system in a number of ways, most obviously perhaps with the new power for the NRA to impose conditions related to the processes and technology from which the discharges derive.
Finally, we are complementing these arrangements by far wider and stronger powers to deal with the new risks—particularly from accidental and diffuse pollution—to which the water environment is subject. In this way we are, through protection zones, regulations on storage, emergency works powers and similar arrangements, giving far stronger expression than before to the precautionary principle in this area. This, then, is the background to the first part of the proceedings today. Against it, let me now turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
This amendment would insert in the Bill a general duty on the Secretary of State, very much of the kind in the 1973 Water Act, as the noble Lord said. That duty was inadequate because it was vague and hung in air, unrelated to specific powers and obligations. The amendment is equally vague, confirming the gulf between us and Her Majesty's Opposition. They believe that central government control and ownership are more important than detailed regulations. The main intention of the new Bill's provisions is to remedy this. The Secretary of State's duty is no longer a disembodied abstraction: it is firmly built into the powers and duties in the Bill. This Bill does not simply state a general duty: it gives it firm operational force.
How does it achieve that? As my noble friend Lord Renton was just reminding us, the Bill is full of detail. For example, Clause 102 provides for the Secretary of State to set water quality objectives but to do so for the purpose of maintaining and improving water quality. Clause 103 then requires the Secretary of State and the NRA to exercise all the ensuing powers and obligations in this chapter of the Bill so as to achieve those objectives as far as it is practicable to do so.
So this part of the Bill is a carefully constructed whole. It sets out the duty—the maintenance and improvement of water quality. It makes clear how, through the quality objectives, that duty should be

161
given real substance and meaning. Finally, it requires all pollution control powers to be used to achieve these.
This is a complete and full framework providing the critical linkages which have been absent in previous legislation. In these circumstances I suggest that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would simply introduce an undesirable element of muddle and duplication. The noble Lord said that we are experimenting with privatisation. We are not; we are seeking to sever the link between the gamekeeper and the poacher which has been the cause of so many of our problems.
The last Labour Government was the one which experimented. It experimented with the environment by cutting costs in real terms. Never has the environment been so neglected. That was perhaps not deliberate. It resulted from not having any sensible financial base thus necessitating our having to go cap in hand to the IMF.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tried to reinforce his comments by saying that river quality had declined under this Government. From 1980 to 1985 there was some marginal decline in river water quality. But, as the report of the Environment Committee in another place concluded, that was largely due to cutbacks in investment in sewage treatment works in the 1970s under the then Labour Government. That is pretty good, damning evidence. However, the latest evidence from 1985 to 1987 shows that any decline has been halted and appears to have been reversed.
We have a good record, but it is not good enough. We know that we must make improvements. That is why we have the Bill before us.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the noble Earl felt it necessary to return to general political accusations instead of responding more directly to the issue before us and contained in the amendments. As he has done on more than one occasion, he again seeks to make contrasts between the Labour Party approach, which he describes as central government control and ownership, and regulation. It is the first time I have heard Conservative privatisation philosophy described as a philosophy of regulation. At least it is honest. At least it recognises that in the pursuit of what I insist on calling the "experiment of privatisation" of the water industry—which has grown up successfully as a public rather than a private enterprise—it may be necessary to have literally hundreds of pages of regulation in a Bill with, no doubt, thousands of pages of regulation in the form of regulation by the Secretary of State, codes of standards and interference by Whitehall in private industry. I wonder whether that is the image which the Government wish to project. Certainly that is occurring.
As a result of this privatisation experiment we are having more detailed regulation, more detailed control from Whitehall and more detailed imposition of new controls than the water industry has ever known. That is what is actually happening
162
whatever may be claimed for the ideology behind privatisation. As for things becoming worse because of the Labour Government, I note that at least the noble Lord, Lord Renton, did not make that claim. Quite rightly he referred to the improvement of river water quality over a period of time. The period that he chose was one of 30 to 40 years. I agree. I believe that there has been an improvement of river water quality over that time. However, during the past 10 years of the 1980s there has been deterioration. Incidentally, it was not the Commons Environmental Committee which made the point about earlier investment; it was the Government's response to that committee.
I wonder whether Members of the Committee who feel in any doubt about the amendment have read the series of articles on the Warwickshire Avon which appeared in The Times last week. I know that the Minister was in Kenya representing valiantly, I am sure, our interests in the United Nations' environment programme conference. No doubt it has been difficult for him to catch up with everything that occurred while he was away but other Members will have read the articles. They will have seen that the Warwickshire Avon was chosen, not as an example of the worst of our rivers, but as a typical, average river. The Times makes that claim for its series of articles and Members must judge whether it is accurate.
The articles show that low standards at all stages of ingress into the river are responsible for the poor quality of the water of the River Avon. Above all they show that, although not responsible by any means for all the pollution, outdated sewerage works based on standards of the 1930s, 1920s or even earlier are the largest single cause of pollution. A particular example which I recall and to which I can refer is that of Rugby. There, the sewerage works were set up with a gravity-fed system rather than a pump system because at that time it was thought to be more economical.
The amendment proposes a general duty of maintenance and improvement of river water quality. We believe this to be the only way in which all those concerned—and we refer specifically to the Secretary of State and the National Rivers Authority—will be brought to recognise the seriousness of the situation. At the moment we are not reassured. As we know, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has been suffering personnel problems which appear to be caused by the fact that senior staff believe that the inspectorate is under-funded and unable to carry out its duties to the extent that it would wish. There appear to be only five pollution inspectors responsible for policing the quality of water along the entire length of the River Avon which runs virtually across our country.
The funding of the National Rivers Authority is also of great concern. Unless it has an overriding duty not only to keep things as they are but to make them better, what effective argument will it have to ensure that Government provides the funds it needs in order to carry out those duties?
Members of the Committee have referred to the polluter pays principle. It is one we have very much in mind. We have not neglected the detail in the

163
following clauses. Amendments Nos. 366A and 366B refer specifically to the polluter pays principle. We are concerned with the detail of the Bill as well as with the general principles. However, we believe, as the Government, in earlier parts of the Bill, for example, in the relationship between general duties in Clause 7 and more detailed duties in Clause 8 have shown that they also believe—that a statement of general duty is essential if all concerned are to work together to give us the river quality which we deserve and which we believe this country needs.
On that note it is necessary that I seek the opinion of the Committee——
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I should like to say a few words before the noble Lord puts the Question. I apologise for not speaking earlier, but I did not realise that the debate would come to an end so soon.
I had the interesting responsibility of being the introducer of the first set of river quality objectives. That probably distinguishes me in this Committee and in most places elsewhere. When I was chairman of the National Water Council I knew that it had the responsibility in the 1973 structure. Not unnaturally the 10 regional water authorities were not hasty in setting up river quality objectives. By doing so they placed great obligations on themselves to observe the objectives. However, it was clear that it was implicit in the Bill and in the words which the noble Lord quoted in Section 1 of the 1973 Act that the machinery for implementing the river quality objectives was tenuous, to say the least.
I need not go into great detail but I had some difficulty in persuading the 10 chairmen who sat on the National Water Council with me that they should do that. I did persuade them that it was our obligation and they agreed to do that. We proceeded slowly, but they began to set river quality objectives for the rivers of this country. My mind goes back to when The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 was first talked about. I must say that I thought that that would never happen. I was in a position more or less to make it happen, and it began to happen.
However, the point I am really making is that the 1973 Act, which was a very good Act and which included many excellent provisions for improving the conditions of our rivers, did not have a really effective machinery of enforcement. As chairman of the National Water Company, and with the independent members to help me, I could do something to persuade the 10 chairmen to carry it out. However, at the end of the day they are responsible for monitoring the rivers, reporting and observing the river quality objectives. Therefore, the machinery was very feeble.
The great distinction of my noble friend's enormous Bill, which is horrific in any state, is that he has set up a rational, powerful structure in the National Rivers Authority which is there to see that the regulations and river quality objectives are observed. I believe that that will achieve progress far quicker than ever before.
164
Perhaps I may just say a few words on a point made by the noble Lord; namely, that it is the regional water authorities, the water companies of the future and the sewerage works which are the main polluters. Of course they are, because it is common practice nowadays to persuade, almost to compel, all industry to discharge its toxic effluents into the public sewer because that is the best way of dealing with it. It is required initially to give pre-treatment, but normally, after pre-treatment, it is easier in combination with the urban sewage to extract the toxicity from toxic effluents than to discharge direct. That is common practice. Therefore, in that respect, the present regional water authorities and the water companies of the future are carrying the load for the whole community. Of course, we expect them to do that and to do it properly, but that is a tremendously expensive task and, as the noble Lord rightly says, a good many sewerage works in the country are not big enough or sophisticated enough to give us the kind of service which we want. However, that task is being proceeded with.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell will put pressure on the defective water companies of the future which have inadequate sewerage works, to step up their programmes—and that will be very expensive and will cost millions of pounds—so that they are discharging effluents which are acceptable in terms of the water quality objective of that particular river. Therefore, there is a machinery; so my noble friend can rightly claim that undoubtedly we have the cleanest rivers in Europe, and that with this Bill we shall have the most effective machinery not only for keeping the rivers clean but for making them cleaner.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should recognise that, although his aims are absolutely right, the particular clause he wishes to insert will not add a great deal to the Bill. The Bill has it there, and for the first time it has a really effective machinery to see that the goods are delivered and that the standards really are observed. I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the contrary, I am trebly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford: first, because he has given us the benefit of his unrivalled experience in the water industry; secondly, because he has confirmed that the availability of a general duty on the water authorities under the 1973 Act was of assistance to him in persuading the chairmen of water authorities that they should act to improve river quality, thereby, in my view—and I am not putting these words into his mouth—confirming the necessity for a general duty to maintain and improve water quality; and thirdly, for rightly drawing attention to the value of an effective regulatory mechanism under the succeeding clauses of the Bill.
I do not disagree with a word he said. As is obvious from the amendments we have tabled, we are very much concerned not to dismantle the detailed regulations in Clauses 100 to 112, but to extend and improve them and to make them work more

165
effectively. We believe that the two must be complementary and that the general overriding duty must be the guiding light, if you like, of the Secretary of State and the authority, and that the detailed regulations are on the way to achieve that. That is why we are tabling amendments on water quality objectives, on the timescale for achieving them, on the consents required, on the consultation required and on all the many aspects which are important elements of this Government's concept of the regulation of river water quality. I see that I am required to give way again.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord said that he and his noble friends are anxious to ensure that the detailed provisions of Clauses 194 to 112 are carried out as a general duty. If he will look at Clause 103 he will find a general duty there expressed as strongly as any general duty could be expressed in relation to those clauses in almost the same words as his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 103—
Noble Lords: Clause, clause!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who leapt to my attack! That contains general duties but does not refer to the important point so valuable in the 1973 Act and which is not available here; that is, that it is a duty not just to achieve and maintain the objectives, as the rubric to Clause 103 says, but to improve river quality. That is what we want to see, that is what has been in other legislation and that is what is missing from this legislation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about the role of the National Rivers Authority, and I agree that it is right that the National Rivers Authority should have this responsibility. I agree with the Government about the general thrust of the subsequent amendments in Part III of the Bill. However, in order to make them effective and in order to add the critical element of improvement of river water quality, we need this Amendment No. 361M. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 361M) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Amherst, E.

Bottomley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Attlee, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Birk, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Blease, L.

Blyth, L.

Carter, L.

166

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mountevans, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Vernon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Walston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Winstanley, L.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Allerton, L.

Annaly, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Havers, L.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Ironside, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Killearn, L.

Carnock, L.

Kimball, L

Cawley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Clinton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cox, B.

McFadzean, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L

Donegall, M.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elibank, L.

Moran, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Goold, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Grantchester, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Quinton, L.

Haddington, E.

Radnor, E.

167

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Renton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Sudeley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Swansea, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Terrington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Teviot, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shannon, E.

Trafford, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Tranmire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Slim, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Somers, L.

Wigram, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wise, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wynford, L.

Strange, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
Clause 100 [Waters to which Chapter I applies]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 361N
Page 109, line 20, leave out ("three") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to extend the relevant territorial waters to be coterminoused with our national territorial waters. The associated Amendment No. 361T therefore deletes subsection (1)(a) of Clause 100 that allows the Minister to exercise his choice, so to speak, and to make part of the relevant territorial waters coincide with our territorial waters.
The Territorial Sea Act 1987 is important. Section l(1)(a) with which that Act opens provides that the breadth of our national territorial sea shall be 12 nautical miles. As it is drafted, Clause 100 provides for the NRA to exercise its functions only over what are called "relevant territorial waters"; that is, waters that conform to the previous territorial limit of three miles. The Territorial Sea Act refers in annotations to the "territorial sea".
On Second Reading of that Bill the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office defined that as,
"a belt of waters adjacent to the coast within which a coastal state enjoys sovereignty".—[Official Report, 5/2/87; cols. 382–3.]
I consider that sovereignty is not merely a matter of enjoyment but also a duty and it is clear to me that we have a national duty to control pollution within these limits; in this case, controlling pollution which can arise in the water itself, which is the function of the NRA.
Pollution that derives from land-based sources can extend its polluting capacity beyond the three mile limit. Some of the discharges of our larger polluted estuaries—for example, the Humber—certainly are detectable at a range beyond three miles from the coast. The effects of dumping at sea may well extend beyond three miles from the coast, including the dumping of sewage from water works. We do not know how far the effects of long sea discharges of sewage from land are likely to be felt. That is where research is necessary. There is constant pressure at the moment to extend these pipes further out to sea, but as presently envisaged it is unlikely that any will
168
extend beyond the three mile limit. I consider that the NRA should have the capacity to consider and control pollution from such sources—that is, originating from the water industry—that extends beyond that range.
Therefore, I have proposed these two amendments which, taken together, will have the effect of extending the powers of the National Rivers Authority to the limits of the seas over which, as a nation, we hold sovereignty. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): This amendment proposes that the definition of "territorial waters" for the purposes of the pollution control provisions of the Bill should include all areas of the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles from the relevant base lines, rather than three. I recognise that under the Territorial Sea Act 1987, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned, the United Kingdom territorial waters have been extended to 12 miles and we have considered very carefully whether the coverage of our pollution controls should be extended accordingly.
Twelve miles would take us some considerable distance into the high seas, where the very tight and detailed controls we have on pollution of inland waters would be of little relevance. Nor do we believe that with all its other tasks we can properly ask the NRA to take on what, if diligently performed, could prove substantial extra responsibilities. However I believe that I can reassure my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that for four reasons this extension is not in fact necessary.
First, the areas of the sea in question are already subject to the controls under the dumping at sea provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Secondly, our provisions in the Bill already require that in the case of any discharge from land to areas of the sea, to whatever distance, whether three miles or 12 miles or even further, that discharge shall be subject to control and require the NRA's consent. Thirdly, the NRA will be able to monitor the effect of these discharges on the sea at whatever distance. We have not given it a duty to monitor such areas of the sea, but it does have the power to investigate or monitor them pursuant to its powers to set and review discharge consents. Finally, as my noble friend is, I believe, aware, we do have power by order to bring other areas of the sea within territorial waters if the need should arise.
In the light of all these considerations, I hope that my noble friend will feel that the area of the sea to which he refers is already securely protected, and that to give the NRA the wider obligations in respect of it which he proposes we believe is not necessary.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend Lord Cranbrook replies, I feel bound to express some anxiety in this matter. By having the 12-mile limit for which we negotiated very strenuously internationally, we are imposing on foreigners a duty not to come within our 12-mile limit. Thereby we are protecting our fisheries and placing an obligation

169
on foreigners. As regards ourselves, our government institutions and our own people, we are saying: "No, we are going to have a lesser standard than that which we impose on foreigners. We are only going to make them observe the right principles within three miles". That does not seem to be consistent or right. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will consider this matter still further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I share the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In his reply the Minister concentrated on the issue of the 12-mile limit. He may be right because I do not know the rights or wrongs of whether 12 miles is the best possible limit. The Minister made only a passing reference to the fact that the National Rivers Authority is only to have the power, rather than a duty, to control discharge within a smaller area of our coastal waters—perhaps three miles. I find it puzzling that whereas the NRA has a duty when it is a matter of inland, estuarial or tidal waters, it has only a power when it comes to coastal waters.
I think it is fair to say that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, chanced on this anomaly in the drafting of the Bill at an earlier Committee stage. I understand that he has tabled these amendments with the intention of extending the responsibilities; namely, the duties of the National Rivers Authority. I find it disturbing that the Government have not responded to that part of his argument. Whether the 12-mile limit is the ideal, I do not know. I hope that the Government will be able to give to the noble Earl more reassurance than they have done so far.
Baroness White: As one of those who took part in the discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who was then in office, on the extension to the 12-mile limit, I hope very much that the Government will take this matter a little more seriously than they have done so far. I have considerable sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. This was one among many reasons why it was desirable to extend the national limit from three to 12 miles in the first place. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has indicated, I hope very much that the Government will reconsider the situation. I wonder whether we should impose a duty on the NRA to do something, if not to place on it the whole gamut of responsibility that it undertakes as regards fresh waters.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am very interested in the response that my amendment has aroused on all sides of the Committee. I reiterate the point that I was making. In my view the duty should extend to the limits of our territorial waters. In response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is not just any old limit; it is the limit of our sovereignty. The limit of 12 miles is a very clear one about which we debated. There was a very considerable amount of international action on this subject. It was a very important point. Our national territorial limits were extended enormously. If you add nine miles around the perimeter of an island nation such as ours, you add enormously to the national sovereign territory over which we acquire benefits. In my view, and
170
that of other noble Lords who have spoken, we also drew obligations on ourselves.
I understand that the dumping regulations are controlled by MAFF, and under the Food and Environment Protection Act I believe that MAFF may be the enforcement agency. I ask the Minister whether either of these circumstances oblige MAFF to have regard to pollution and to control pollution in these waters? I recognise that this is a question for which the Minister may require notice. In order to give him that notice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the grounds that I may come back to it later after there has been clarification.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 361NA:
Page 109, line 29 leave out ("inland") and insert ("fresh").
The noble Lord said: This amendment more closely follows the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was referring to just now. The purpose of this amendment is to set in place a series of amendments that would reverse the rather peculiar arrangements at present in the Bill. It is perfectly obvious that in this respect the Bill has been cobbled together from existing legislation, rather in the manner in which those of us who have word processors cobble together long letters by taking bits of existing text and joining them on. We have already stumbled across this curious anomaly that, except in this part of the Bill, "inland" by definition includes coastal down to low water limits.
If we start at this point by using the word "fresh" to apply to fresh waters under what we might call the C.O.P.A. section of the Bill, we then lay the trail for a series of amendments that I hope will ultimately reverse the linguistic peculiarities of this Bill. So instead of the words "inland waters" having the meaning of the 1963 Act, which I maintain is obscure and confusing to the layman, when we are speaking of fresh waters we shall call them fresh waters and when we are talking about sea waters we shall call them sea waters. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I feel difficulty on this occasion about what is proposed by my noble friend. He knows as well as I do that with the Great Ouse the fresh waters do not begin until nearly 40 miles inland, when you reach the Seven Holes Sluice at Earith; it is tidal until then. The River Thames is tidal until it reaches Teddington. Moreover, the Thames at high spring tides is largely salt water for a long way up; it is not fresh water.
If we are to replace the concept of "inland waters", strictly speaking we are getting into some sort of confusion with the second part of this paragraph, which refers to,
"so much of any relevant river or watercourse as is above the fresh-water limit".
I am not certain whether paragraph (c) is really intended to cover places which are so far inland. "The fresh-water limits", strictly speaking, is where the tide ends. The term "inland waters" is a much broader concept than that. This is a matter of words rather than of principles. However, I am not certain

171
what effect the amendment would have upon the words of paragraph (c).
The Earl of Cranbrook: I think that before the noble Lord sits down I had better clarify the function of the amendment. The problem about which he is worrying does not in fact arise. I do not think that it is simply because I am a biologist rather than a lawyer that I understand the term "fresh water" to mean water which excludes salt.Therefore Clause 100(1)(b) defines "coastal waters" as waters,
"which are within the area which extends landward",
and so on and,
"in the case of the waters of any relevant river or watercourse, as far as the fresh-water limit".
That means to say that those waters of a river which are infused by salt as a result of tidal flow are below the fresh-water limit and are covered'by subsection (1)(b).
It is perfectly clear to me that subsection (1)(c) refers to those waters which are "above the fresh-water limit"; that is to say, are above the zone which is infused from time to time with salt water and therefore the brackish zone. Therefore, to use the term "fresh waters" is almost redundant because it almost becomes tautologous, as it then means that subsection (1)(c) says that fresh waters are fresh waters.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that all of us can have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook says. Indeed, the definitions in this area are unfortunately inevitably complex. But, as my noble friend appreciates, we cannot start wholly anew without regard for the definitions in other legislation. Moreover, we do not believe that what we have given will cause misunderstanding. First, we specifically make the point in the Bill that the definition of "inland water" in this chapter is different from elsewhere in the Bill. Secondly, and perhaps more important, the definition on page 109 makes clear that inland water extends only to the "fresh-water limit".
In contrast, we believe that my noble friend's proposal to use the term "fresh waters" would itself cause confusion. To the general public the category of "inland waters" covers a wide variety of cases including, for instance, brackish water in upland areas—which in the public mind might not be regarded as fresh—and even waters in reservoirs which equally may not be regarded as fresh. We therefore believe that the definitions which we have in the Bill as drafted are those most clear-cut and helpful for the general public, and even more so for the regulations.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I still feel that there is a serious confusion, especially when I look retrospectively at Clause 8. It would be preferable if we were able to replace the term "inland waters" in this subsection with the term "fresh waters". I must say that I cannot think of any inland upland lake in this country which is salty. If that replacement was achieved, we would then have a much clearer definition of "inland waters"; we would be allowed
172
to let inland fresh waters mean what they do mean throughout the Bill; and we would be able, if we do not want to meddle too much with existing legislation, to make the earlier definition of "inland waters", which included sea waters, the exception rather than the rule.
Such matters need to be looked at carefully. I also need the opportunity to read what my noble friend said. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 361P:
Page 109, line 40, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of the requirements of section 102(1A) below, the Secretary of State shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a Schedule of all waters falling within the clauses specified in subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 361V, 361W, 362AAB and 362DAB. These are the first evidence of our intention not in any way to disparage the regulatory mechanism proposed in this part of the Bill but to seek to make it as effective as possible in achievement as well as in prescription.
Amendment No. 361P would require the Secretary of State to,
"publish a Schedule of all waters",
to which the regulatory procedures are to apply for the purpose of water quality objectives. Amendment No. 361V states that he shall make regulations under Clause 101. Amendment No. 361W says that in order to set water quality objectives the Secretary of State shall establish a classification system. Amendment No. 362AAB has two purposes. First, it states that there should be a date—the soonest practicable date—for compliance with objectives; in other words, objectives are not enough unless they are complied with. But, it also states—I shall not say more importantly—equally importantly, that it is for the authority to specify the date, not the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 362DAB is a consequential amendment which relies upon the fact that the objectives will become, under the Bill as amended, the responsibility of the authority and not of the Secretary of State.
I believe that these amendments are coherent in their approach. They seek to secure that objectives are not set in a vacuum, but that they go further and are enforced by a timetable for compliance. They also seek to secure that it is the National Rivers Authority, not the Secretary of State, which sets the quality of standards and imposes the timetable.
The matter was debated in another place but, unfortunately, the debate was mostly about the establishment of water quality objectives. We do not doubt here that the Government have the intention of setting water quality objectives; indeed, this part of the Bill is very much concerned with water quality objectives; and we have no dissent from that. However, what is required is that there should be a timescale and a sufficient enforcement procedure for actual compliance.
We understand that the National Rivers Authority will begin a national river quality survey in 1990 which will be the basis of the new system. We certainly hope that the conditions to be imposed for river water quality will be no less stringent than existing standards. It is for that reason, above all, that we think it is the NRA, and not the Government, which should be responsible for setting such standards.
The history of this matter has not been good. Perhaps I may take the specific example of the River Rother in Derbyshire. The Yorkshire River Authority, which is responsible for that river, said in 1974 that the river would achieve its water quality objective—that is to be Class 2, fair—by 1979. When 1979 was reached, the authority said that it would be done by 1987. But, when the year 1987 was reached, the authority stated that the new target for achievement would be the year 2001.
That is not a very happy prospect; it is not one which chimes very well with the broad government statements which state that we have the best water quality in Europe and that every day, and in every way, things are getting better and better; that is simply not so. They are simply not getting better because our system for enforcing water quality objectives is not adequate. What actually happens, far too often, is that the standards are set not on any objective basis of what the river ought to be like, but on what those at the time think is actually achievable within a timescale and without too much upset.
Standards are designed down in engineering terms to what is likely to be achieved at an acceptable cost. Then the work done to improve river quality is designed down to fit those standards which have already been designed down. That means that whereas exceptions might have been a rarity in the past it becomes all too easy with everybody working to minimum standards rather than optimum standards for exceptions to be more common and for standards to be breached on a statistical basis more frequently. There is plenty of evidence not only that this is happening but that the Secretary of State is giving it its blessing.
I can give examples from the Thames Water area. The Secretary of State encouraged water authorities to apply for relaxation consents. That was done partly for the justifiable reason that in order to know when relaxation consents would have to be negotiated with the European Commission it was necessary to know from the water authorities which works were not complying and which rivers were being polluted in a way which the Commission would find to be inappropriate. By the closing date of last Friday Thames Water Authority had applied for 98 works to be allowed to relax their consent conditions. We have been able to discover this by looking at the registers of compliance and identifying the works which are failing or are likely to fail. No adequate publicity has been given to the compliance process or to the fact that so many water authorities are applying for relaxation on behalf of so many works.
Perhaps I may give a few examples from within the Thames Water area. One is Mogden works in Isleworth and another is Wargrave in Berkshire. The
174
effluent from Mogden was identified as a reason for the poor condition of the Thames when 10 million fish died after a storm in central London in 1986. The Wargrave works was prosecuted successfully by the Anglers Co-operative for non-compliance. Other works such as Crawley and Luton—those are the largest ones—are already discharging into rivers effluent which fails to meet the water quality objectives. Will relaxation be sought for them?
The truth of the matter is that the existing process is not working well enough. We will not get river water quality which will meet European Commission standards or indeed the standards we ought ourselves to have for river water quality. Because of privatisation and because of threats from Europe the Secretary of State is positively encouraging attempts to secure relaxation rather than encouraging attempts to secure compliance. Our series of amendments, which deals with the problem of identifying the waters, the problem of setting up a proper system of classification, the problem of who shall be responsible for setting the objectives—we think it should be the NRA and not the Secretary of State—and above all the problem of a date for compliance, proposes a regulatory mechanism preferable to that proposed by the Government. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Strabolgi: I should like to support what my noble friend has said. Reference was made earlier to recent articles in The Times. The first of those articles in particular brought to light an alarming state of affairs. At the top of the article is the caption:
"Today fish are dying and it is not safe to eat the eels".
If the rivers of this country are as good as the noble Earl pretends, why are we being asked by the Community to improve our standards?
However, the most important point in the articles, and the reason for my venturing to intervene on this amendment, was the reference made to a quotation from the Friends of the Earth. An officer of Friends of the Earth says:
"If the new private water companies have to improve standards, it would cost them money and make them a less attractive investment for would-be shareholders. To get round this, the Government has decided to lower the standards so that works which at present fail will be deemed to pass".
The articles goes on to say:
"A letter from the Department of the Environment to water authority chiefs in November last year confirmed this: up to 2,300 of the 6,430 sewage works in England and Wales will be eligible to relax standards until March 1992 while the new private companies raise funds for remedial work".
I wonder whether the noble Earl would like to comment on that because it seems to me to bring to light a very perturbing state of affairs. The Government are trying to do two things. First, for their self-indulgent measure of privatisation, they are trying to make the assets as attractive as possible for the investors; and secondly, after privatisation they will be able to turn round and say how marvellous it is that the rivers are much cleaner than they were before.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to support my noble friend in general terms and to agree strongly with his description of the manner in which

175
standards in the technological world are achieved. He is quite right. The standards are not as a rule the optimum standards. They are achievable ones. I dissent slightly from what he went on to say about engineers. He said that the standards were designed down and then the engineers designed down to the standards again. I anticipate what he is about to say, and I shall let him say it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was making an engineering analogy. I was not accusing the engineers.
Lord Howie of Troon: It may have been an analogy but, whatever else it was, it was not an engineering one. Engineers design to the standards and meet them as best they can. It is correct that the standards ought to be the best possible ones. The danger of their not being the best possible ones can be shown not in analogy but in an example drawn from a wholly different field.
Noble Lords will remember a controversy a year or two ago over the design of the Severn Bridge. It was felt that the bridge had been underdesigned, and it had to be strengthened at a substantial cost of £32 million. What had happened was that the bridge had been designed to a standard which was then raised. The standard being raised, the design was inadequate for the raised condition although it was adequate for the original condition. The point which is helpful to my noble friend is that it would have been better if the first standard to which that bridge was designed had been the second one, the optimum one, if the Committee follows my meaning. Now that my noble friend and I see eye to eye on engineering matters, I should like to support him in his search for optimum standards wherever they can be reached.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. We must keep in mind what the Bill is about. It is about handing over water to private companies. We can dress up the clauses but that is basically what is behind it all.
"By their deeds ye shall know them". A few years ago there was a terrific 24-hour rainstorm. I was travelling back from the Isle of Wight and saw rivers overflowing. In Surrey the three rivers that overflowed first were the Wey, the Mole and—I cannot remember the third one. I had with me my brother who is a surveyor. He worked in the Inland Revenue and understood these matters. He told me that these were privately owned rivers and that the owners never did anything with them. He said that the rivers were silted up, nothing was ever done and so they were the first to flood. Perhaps flooding is not very serious but it was indicative that it was the private rivers that first of all flooded and not the rivers controlled by the authorities. We have every reason to suppose that this will go from bad to worse. One cannot get away from the fact that once there is any activity where the first responsibility is to shareholders and profit everything else has to fall into place behind that.
I am very glad that my noble friend brought us down to earth, particularly with the excellent
176
quotation from Mr. Murdoch's Times. That is not exactly a socialist publication. The Government have to be careful when they put over the argument that they are actually going to improve everything. We have no confidence in the existing private water boards.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: I believe that in the final analysis it is not entirely money that is needed for putting the sewerage plant right as quickly as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested. I am told that there is a logistical problem and that there are not the resources of engineers and plant because so much of that type of labour and executive skill is taken up by the Channel Tunnel and will similarly be taken up by the fast rail link. It is not entirely a matter of money. There are very practical considerations to be thought of.
The Earl of Caithness: These amendments concern the establishment and operation of a system of classifying waters and associated quality objectives, providing the general framework for protection and management of water quality.
The purpose of Amendment No. 361P is the first stage in the process. The amendment requires the Secretary of State within three months of enactment of the Bill to publish a schedule of the controlled waters for the purposes of the setting of statutory quality objectives under Clause 102. There are several reasons why the amendment is impracticable, unreasonable and unnecessary. First, in respect of estuaries and coastal waters, it is quite unnecessary since the scope of these waters is self-evident, or at least will be with the deposit of the maps showing the fresh water limits of relevant rivers and water courses under subsection (2). I would remind the Committee that such maps have to be deposited before the transfer date.
In the case of inland waters and ground waters, the amendment is unreasonable and impracticable. Our starting point will be the 1985 river quality survey. We shall establish statutory quality objectives for all rivers and canals covered in that survey. We recognise that it may be appropriate to draw in some of the small upland streams which feed these rivers in view of the pressures upon many of them. However, which ones can only be decided by establishing the objectives and taking account of public consultation. The same applies to other inland waters such as lakes, ponds, and, even more so, underground waters where the process of setting objectives is some distance into the future. The amendment would entail a pointless diversion from the real task of getting on with the 1990 river quality survey and the process of establishing and consulting upon quality objectives which must accompany and grow out of it.
Amendment No. 361V proposes the deletion of "may" and substitution of "shall" in respect of the Secretary of State's duty with regard to classification of water quality. We have been round this course many times before, and particularly in relation to the Bill. I repeat once more that "may" is the ordinary formulation in matters of this kind involving the

177
Secretary of State, not only in this Bill but in modern legislation generally. Were the noble Lord's party ever again to be in government—a prospect which may seem remote—I have no doubt it would follow just the same conventions. The fact is that this was a non-point the first time it was made and is even more so now.
However, having pursued this non-point, I must say that the noble Lord has managed in the same clause to come forward with another. The Secretary of State is to set classifications for rivers and estuaries "as soon as reasonably practicable". As the Government have made clear they are already working on classification proposals which they expect soon to publish for consultation. I cannot say exactly when that will be, but it will be as soon as reasonably practicable. These classifications are a key feature in the new system we have designed for pollution control. Of course we shall have them in place as soon as possible but we shall need to ensure they will be sound and effective.
I object to the amendment for another reason apart from the adding of unnecessary words to the Bill which is already quite long enough. If we insert "as soon as reasonably practicable" for the two categories of controlled waters to which the amendment refers, the implication will be that in the case of others they need not be set as soon as reasonably practicable. But of course we want to do this, although on a necessarily longer timescale because of the research required and the new issues involved.
I turn now to Amendment No. 362AAB and to Amendment No. 362DAB which is related to it. These concern the setting of water quality objectives in Clause 102 and provide that the authority rather than the Secretary of State should specify the date by which they are to be achieved, that date being as soon as the objectives can be practicably complied with.
Although the NRA's views will be of great importance in setting the timetable it must ultimately be set by the Secretary of State. The rate of improvement of water quality can have significant implications because of the scale of resources involved. At the same time, the quality objectives and the timetable attached to them will represent the fullest expression of substance of national policy for the water environment. The NRA will have a key role in advising and helping to develop it as well as in its implementation, but the decision must ultimately be with the Secretary of State and the government of the day. Any other course would clearly be inappropriate.
As to the proposal that the date for achievement be the soonest by which the authority considers compliance can be achieved in each case, I suggest that that is quite inappropriate. "Soonest practicable" makes no allowance for finance, resources or other priorities. I believe it to be fundamentally irresponsible.
This Government are committed to quality objectives which provide for the maintenance and progressive improvement of our rivers, estuaries and other waters. The dates prescribed will reflect this,
178
but I would put to the Committee that to have to achieve those objectives as fast as practicable without regard for other considerations is wholly unrealistic and unreasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that the European Community is asking us to improve the standards of our rivers. No, it is not asking us to do that; it is asking us to meet certain standards on pollution control in common with all other countries. Every other country in the European Community has problems with its water supply and sewerage services. I am glad to record that our problems are not as serious as those of most other countries. I repeat that our record on water quality is not bettered by any other European Community country. Ninety-five per cent. of the UK rivers are of good or fair quality.
There is the important point of the application for time limited consents for sewage treatment works to cover the period while improvements are being made. We have made it clear that all applications will be advertised and that representations will be considered by the Secretary of State. There is no secrecy; it is an open process. And there is no question of relaxing standards. We are regularising current discharges while improvements take place through the time limited consents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I regret that that answer confirms our worst fears. Those fears led us to put down the amendments. The Minister describes it as irresponsible to suggest that the date by which compliance should be achieved should be the soonest practicable date. He says that a formula of "soonest practicable date" ignores other considerations—such as Finance—which ought to be taken into account. I suggest to the Government and to the Committee that what they are ignoring are the costs not of compliance but of non-compliance, the costs of having rivers which are below the standards which we are entitled to expect in terms of water quality. There is the example of the damage which was done to the River Avon and the costs that were incurred on the part of everyone living along the River Avon. It is not just a question of amenity; economic costs are also involved. That fact is totally ignored in the Minister's formulation.
Apparently the Minister is determined to keep in the hands of the Secretary of State, whose primary objective in these matters is to secure the financial viability of the water and sewerage undertakings—let us not forget that fact; that is what the Bill is about—not only the quality standards themselves, but the timetable for compliance with them. That is why I proposed to the Committee that we needed a general duty to maintain and improve the quality of our rivers. However, the Government rejected that idea. We are now seeing the effects of that rejection. It is now apparent not only that the standards are to be not objective but: political, but also that the timetable for their achievement is to be not objective but political.
The resolute rejection of the costs of non-compliance and the concentration only on the financial costs to the shareholders of the new companies of putting matters right, as they will be

179
responsible for that, is simply not acceptable to us. I believe that the Minister had some valid points about the detailed wording of the amendments and it is on that basis that I do not propose to pursue them. However, the fundamental point we are making is that the authority should be responsible for this matter and not the Secretary of State, and that there should be none of the relaxation of standards which, in effect, is taking place now. I noticed that the Minister did not deny any of the examples I gave. That is evidence that not all is well and that this matter will have to be debated again and put right when it comes before the Chamber on Report. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 361Q:
Page 110, line 15, leave out ("subject to subsection (5) below)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 361R, 361S and 361U. Effectively, these amendments seek to bring those landlocked water areas, that is ponds and lakes, within the same basic framework as a pond or a lake which happens to be connected to a free flowing river. At the moment, the landlocked ponds and lakes are excluded.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that landlocked ponds and lakes can be very important parts of the natural environment. Indeed they can provide a unique habitat for various types of fauna and flora and various types of aquatic and bird life. As they represent such a unique habitat, I suggest that it is not unreasonable to place them within the general responsibilities of the NRA and to give them the kind of protection to which they should surely be entitled.
Amendment No. 361R excludes such deliberately created refuse ponds as slurry ponds or pools and sewage tanks, so we shall not have the problem that certain kinds of ponds which are specifically designed for dispensing with effluent will be brought within the provision. Therefore, we shall avoid any completely ridiculous compensations.
If we are to give the environmental considerations their full weight, these landlocked water areas which form a very important part of our natural environment, especially for certain types of plants and animals which like to live within still waters, should be given as much protection as possible. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: On this particular amendment it is necessary to give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rather a fulsome answer, the content of which I hope he will find agreeable.
The Bill, as drafted, brings within the definition of "controlled waters", and hence subject to the pollution controls in the Bill, those lakes and ponds which discharge into rivers, streams or other lakes. In other words, those which are part of the river system. Those lakes and ponds are subject to the full range of pollution offence controls in Clause 104.
180
Those lakes and ponds which are enclosed and do not discharge are not at present within the definition of relevant lakes or ponds and are not subject to certain of the offence provisions. It is an offence to discharge trade or sewage effluent into them, but they are not subject to the offence covering casual entries of polluting matter or solid waste matter in Clause 104(1)(a).
In dealing with ponds we really do approach the outer limits of what is reasonable and practicable in pollution control. The effect of this amendment would be to bring every small ornamental pond in suburban front gardens under the scope of these offence provisions in all respects—in particular spasmodic entries of polluting matter. More importantly, we would have the most serious problems identifying what the offences applied to because the boundary between a pond and a large puddle which comes and goes with the seasons is often hard to discern. This does not matter with the offence of discharging trade or sewage effluent, where we have included such ponds, because the same offence provision applies to discharges to land. But we would have serious problems in the case of spasmodic entries of polluting matter.
For these reasons, we really do not believe it is feasible to bring all ponds within the definition of "controlled waters", and subject them to the full array of offence provisions and pollution controls. Even the amendment points to some of the difficulties, in specifically excluding ponds constructed to receive agricultural wastes. But, there are very many categories of pond which are designed for the reception of industrial waste also, notably mining effluents.
Faced with these difficulties, we propose what we believe is the most realistic solution. The Secretary of State is given a power by order to bring any category or description of ponds within the definition of "controlled waters", and then subject them to full control. That is the flexible system which will allow us to apply the controls in this Bill selectively, as need requires and as practicality allows. I suggest that this order-making procedure will allow the proposers' basic objectives to be met, but without the severe practical difficulties which would result from adoption of this amendment. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: Although I appreciate that there would be considerable difficulties with this provision, I wish to point out that by a pond I mean something which contains a considerable ecosystem. I do not mean the glorified puddle with two carps sitting in it that occurs in many suburban back gardens. Although I accept that it is quite possible that this amendment may be drawn far too widely, I wish to press the Minister a little further. I hope that he can give me a more specific and possibly more direct assurance that these vital parts of the rural environment will be given more protection in future.
The Earl of Arran: I hoped I had given a sufficient assurance to the noble Lord. I do not think I can go further and add to the assurance I have given him. I repeat that the Secretary of State is given a power by order to bring any category or description of ponds within the definition of "controlled waters", and then subject them to full control.
Lord Addington: I accept what the noble Earl has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 361R to 361U not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Classification of quality of waters]:
[AmendmentsNos. 361Vand36IWnot moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved amendment No. 362:
Page 111, line 1, after ("purposes") insert ("including nature conservation").
The noble Earl said: I note that Amendment No. 362 has been—quite correctly—grouped with others which other Members of the Committee are to move. They are all concerned with one issue; namely, to require the Secretary of State to consider biological criteria when prescribing a system of water quality classification.
Unless nature conservation is considered in the setting of water quality standards, wildlife will receive inadequate attention in the setting of such standards. Clean, good quality water is characterised by containing a rich and diverse wildlife. There are a great many important plants, animals and smaller organisms of high conservation value which can only be protected by the setting of appropriate water quality standards, and which themselves are of value in setting those standards and are key indicators.
It has clearly occurred to a number of Members of the Committee that there are different ways of requiring the Secretary of State to pay consideration to those important facts. The amendment which I propose is intended to have that effect. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 362ZA, which stands in my name and which is grouped with that of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all those who have an interest in or knowledge of a particular waterway will be consulted. That would not be limited to those who have an interest in wildlife and the environment, although that is of prime importance, but would include sportsmen—those interested in yachting, boating or angling. They should also be consulted. I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Moran: I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 362A which stands in my name and which is grouped in this series of amendments. Before I do so I should like to say that I fully support Amendment No. 362 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and Amendment No. 362ZA in the name
182
of the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ross of Newport.
It seems to me to be very important that if one is to classify rivers one must do so not solely on the basis of chemical monitoring; one must also monitor the effect on the biota—namely, changes in species diversity and numbers. It is not just the chemical and physical content of the water that should concern us: we should also ensure that the quality of water in the field is satisfactory. We should monitor fish populations and invertebrates.
Fish are one of the most sensitive monitors of water quality. I listened at lunchtime to the news and heard a representative of South-West Water talk about the latest unfortunate incident which occurred about three weeks ago when, owing apparently to lack of proper supervision, five tonnes of aluminium sulphate were released into a tributary of the River Torridge at Bideford with veny damaging environmental consequences. The first sign of that was the appearance of dead fish.
The present water quality classification relies heavily on a limited set of water quality parameters which do not necessarily reflect the biological realities. We must consider the problem of the accumulation of pollutants in living organisms. I am told that, for example, the concentration factor for PCBs from water to carnivorous mammals may be as high as 10 million. It is therefore increasingly recognised that water quality standards for pollutants should be set mainly on the basis of the pollutant's toxicity, persistence and ability to accumulate in food chains. I believe that important pollutants such as nitrates and phosphates are not given the priority that they should be.
Some time ago the Nature Conservancy Council proposed criteria for phosphates, nitrates and suspended solids for a new classification and submitted them to the Department of the Environment. I should like to ask the Minister what has happened about the proposals.
I believe that all of us who are moving these amendments are agreed that biological criteria should be used. I hope that the Government will agree.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are designed to allow the water quality classifications under Clause 101 to provide for the needs of nature conservation, thereby allowing the objectives, which will be set under Clause 102, to include conservation goals.
Clause 101 as drafted, already does what these amendments are designed to do. Thus, though Amendment No. 362 amends subsection (2)(a) to provide that nature conservation can be one of the purposes for a classification, that subsection as currently drafted in fact in no way excludes conservation, or indeed anything else, from the possible purposes to be covered by a classification. Again, Amendment No. 362A, by adding a new subsection designed to allow classifications to include requirements about the biological as well as the chemical characteristics of water and to take account of the needs of nature conservation adds nothing to subsection (2) as currently drafted.

183
Subsection (2) is already drafted in the widest possible terms. Furthermore, the use made by the Secretary of State of these wide powers to frame classifications will be subject to parliamentary approval. For those reasons we believe that these amendments should not be adopted.
However, behind these amendments I recognise a real and important issue. Will nature conservation be included as a goal in the statutory quality objectives which will be framed in terms of the classifications? The answer is yes. We have already had discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council on how best to do this. There is no simple method, as what may be good for one type of conservation site may be damaging for another. However, we have no doubt that our discussions with the council will produce a generally acceptable means of setting objectives designed to promote conservation.
An example of that is the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, drew to the attention of the Committee concerning the criteria for phosphates, nitrates and suspended solids. We are looking carefully at the NCC's proposals for those criteria and we are sympathetic to them. However, we believe that they will have to be applied on a variable basis and we are now looking at how that should be done.
Whatever the detailed mechanisms we finally adopt, it is our firm intention that water quality classifications should take full account of flora and fauna and biological criteria. The Bill as drafted provides fully for this. In the circumstances I hope that the proposers of the amendments will agree to withdraw them.
Baroness White: Can the noble Lord indicate what objection the Government have to mentioning the Nature Conservancy Council specifically? It is all very well to say that they are having nice cosy talks at the moment, and I am sure that the present occupants of the Government Front Bench are on the closest and most friendly terms with the Nature Conservancy Council. That does not mean, however, that that situation will necessarily continue for the foreseeable future.
If I were the chairman or a member of the staff of the Nature Conservancy Council I should feel very much happier if there were some specific reference to consultation with the appropriate body, which in this case is the NCC. The Government may wish to add others or may say that to name one may look as if one is excluding others.
However, the Nature Conservancy Council has particular responsibility in the areas which have been of concern to the noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I do not believe that it is at all satisfactory simply to indicate that Clause 101 as now drafted does not exclude consultation or the inclusion of various desirable objectives or criteria. It is a fairly comprehensive and wide open clause. But that does not mean that it confers upon a body like the NCC the right to be consulted or the right even to make direct approaches to a Minister on the matter.
Lord Hesketh: I have tried to make it as clear as possible that the object of drafting subsection (2) in the widest possible terms was in order to exclude no one. It is a different approach to finish up with the same answer.
The Earl of Cranbrook: While my noble friend was speaking the first time, I made a mental note that not being excluded is not the same as being included. If we were to give a ball tonight there would be a rather different guest list. I do not see the harm of "including nature conservation", as proposed in my amendment, if it is already intended to be included in the broad range of points to be considered. I heard my noble friend say that, ultimately, the schemes on which the Secretary of State's criteria will be based will be subject to approval in Parliament. I thought that that was an important point. I hope that the Minister might consider that to put in the words "including nature conservation" is not impossible. Perhaps I should give him time to consider the issue. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 362ZA not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 362A:
Page 111, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Specific requirements may also take into account biological as well as chemical criteria, and also the needs of nature conservation.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for what the Minister has said and substantially reassured by it. I should like to study carefully what he has said in Hansard, but I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 362A not moved.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Water quality of objectives]:
[Amendment No. 362AAB not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 362BAB:
Page 111, line 19, at end insert—
("(1A) In establishing the water quality objectives for the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall first consult and take account of the views of all district and county local authorities in whose area the waters are situated in whole or part and of the Nature Conservancy Council.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 362BAB standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This amendment provides that, in establishing water quality objectives, the Secretary of State shall both consult and take into account the views of district and county local authorities in whose areas the waters are situated. The consultation is also to be extended to the Nature Conservancy Council. We hope that the Government will have little difficulty in assuring the Committee that those consultations will be undertaken. If the assurance is given, there is no need for that provision to be written on the face of the Bill. In respect of the Nature Conservancy

185
Council, that provision will be of particular importance where water passes through or has an ecological impact upon sites of special scientific interest in relation to which it already has a role in Clause 9. The argument for local authorities is a general one in respect of planning issues regarding the general amenity of the area, local recreation and public health.
We heard some valuable comments from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in an earlier debate about quality of river water, to the effect that, as great as the ambitions might be and as great as the powers might appear to be, there is still an enormous gap between the will to see that matters are put right and the ability of those with the power to put them right to do so. I do not wish to use pejorative phrases, but the sad fact is that if, even now, with objectives set and with a form of legal power, people can still deny, delay or defer, we should imagine what they can do without a Bill of this kind and the sort of powers that we are seeking to include in it.
We know that the river is part of our natural environment. The Minister certainly does not need any lessons from me in that respect. He is satisfied that, as concerns quality, however it has been achieved—he will take some credit for that—we are getting it about right. It is still not wholly right; there are still some steps to take. I believe that the public is more environmentally conscious now than it has been for a long time. That has been caused by government action—and sometimes by government inaction—by EC inertia, EC directives and the consequences of not being diligent, as for instance in the terrible tragedies in the South-West and other places.
We are therefore knocking at an open door in wanting to bring more people into the consultation process. We are certainly not talking about powers, vetoes or demands. As a local government man in a previous incarnation, I can assure the Minister and his advisers—if they needed to be assured—that, in a busy and full agenda, one will always find local councillors and local council officers willing to play their part in providing advice, intelligence and expertise. Local authorities are the repositories of a great deal of valuable data, history, background and, above all else, pride in their localities. With no disrespect to the Minister, I believe that no Minister in Marsham Street can possibly be as keen to ensure that a little local patch looked after by a council is well kept. The Minister can be proud of wanting to keep Britain green, or make it greener, but it depends upon people in the localities.
This amendment seeks to persuade the Minister that, if the words are not written on to the face of the Bill, steps can be taken to involve the little people at local level. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Before the Minister responds, I am sure that, when the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pays tribute to the people who alerted us to the problems of the environment, he will include the voluntary bodies. They have done the major job of alerting us to such problems as those that exist in the noble Earl's homeland of Caithness. There are many problems all around the
186
country. There are problems with fish farming, particularly in Scotland, and problems in the heathland of Dorset. Those are the people who have alerted us to what is going on in the environment.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that he was knocking at an open door. I suggest that he should come right in and join us because we are already going for the widest possible consultation procedures by requiring the Secretary of State to publish his proposals and consider objections. We want to take the views of local authorities and of the NCC into account, but I must reject the amendment because it does not go wide enough. We should prefer it to go much wider. Of course, those are important views, but other bodies also need to be included in order to play a full part in the procedure. That is taken care of in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister saying that there is no need for the amendment, not only because it is not as comprehensive as it should be, but also because, even if it were more comprehensive, the matter is already taken care of in the Bill? We say here that, when the water quality objectives for the purposes of subsection (1) are created, the Secretary of State should
"first consult and take account of the views of all district and county local authorities".
Is the Minister saying that the intention is already written into the Bill that the Secretary of State shall first consult not only with those people but with a wider tranche of bodies? If he speaks to me in those terms, I shall withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, that is what I was saying—that procedures are written into the Bill which do exactly what the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 362CAB:
Page 111, line 24, at end insert—
("and such requirements shall as a minimum—

(i) specify that the existing water quality objectives shall be maintained; and

(ii) if such objectives are not such that the waters of a description prescribed for the purposes of section 101 above are not capable of self-purification, leading to a measurable improvement of water quality, then those objectives shall be established as to achieve that end.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to this amendment which is in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I am quite certain that the Minister will be able to pre-empt the spirit of this amendment. We seek to ensure that at least the existing water quality objectives should be maintained.
By way of background to this amendment I should mention that the Environment Committee of the House of Commons which reported on the pollution of rivers and estuaries identified a decline in water quality. The Minister told us in context that following that period there had been an

187
improvement. I remind the Committee that there are four classes into which rivers are graded on the basis of an analysis of a number of criteria, including the chemicals which they may be carrying. My noble friend Lord McIntosh gave the Committee a number of sad illustrations of the way in which existing river quality objectives have declined. More appropriately, perhaps I ought to refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—and I pay tribute, as do all other noble Lords, to his integrity and his determination to fulfil his responsibilities—that despite those objectives, although not impossible, it was becoming increasingly difficult to see them implemented and maintained.
Even the existing water quality objectives have not been maintained. There is some dispute over the extent to which we have been successful in achieving as near to 100 per cent. as possible. The figure that I have been given is 90 per cent. whereas the Minister gave a figure of 95 per cent., so the information that I have is not as complimentary as his. I am prepared to accept that my sources are not as up to date as his, but that is the figure that I was given.
We are aware the biggest problem comes from pollution which is mainly of an industrial nature and from sewage treatment works which in one way or another have failed to ensure that standards are maintained. If the Minister can assure me that the first aim of my amendment; namely, that the existing water quality objectives at least will be maintained—and my noble friend Lord McIntosh has said more than once that they should not just be maintained and implemented but should be extended and improved—then none of us will be silly enough to say that the aims of the Bill have to be implemented immediately. The Minister should address himself to the spirit of the measure. He should act in the spirit of the general fabric of our discussion on pollution. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: It would appear that my amendment, Amendment No. 362AB, would have a similar effect and I therefore support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I should like to make the point that we must not allow new objectives brought in by the Secretary of State under this legislation to be less stringent than those that exist already. The opening to the first sentence of Clause 102 reads:
"For the purpose of maintaining and improving the quality of controlled waters".
That makes it clear that this clause is concerned with improving water quality. Clearly it would be very much against the spirit of the legislation if, for whatever reason, the Secretary of State was able to lower existing objectives. Even if they cannot be improved, current objectives should at least be met and maintained.
This amendment would have the effect of harmonising United Kingdom legislation with that of the European Community and in particular Article 8 of Directive 78/659 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. That article states that the implementation of the measures taken pursuant to
188
this directive may on no account lead either directly or indirectly to increasing the pollution of fresh water.
I am sure that this Committee will agree that it should be the objective of any legislation on water to strive to reduce pollution and improve the quality of all surface waters whether or not they are designated as fisheries under this directive. This issue is of particular concern to anglers who have a very close interest in maintaining and improving water quality. But all of us who are concerned about the environment should be keen to improve water quality. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider this amendment, which has not been put forward on any party-political basis.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to add my support for this amendment. Amendment No. 362ABA says virtually the same thing as the amendment that we are now discussing and I should like to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, by entering the discussion at this point. Briefly, I too regard the present classification as being the acceptable minimum at the moment. Any change in the water standard should be a positive one. We should not allow any degradation in the levels of water quality.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie for speaking to his amendment. Both these amendments, as he rightly said, cover the same point; namely, they seek to debar the Secretary of State from using his power to review objectives so as to replace an existing statutory water quality objective by a weaker one, specifying a lower class of water as the goal, and to require self-purification as an aim.
We agree wholeheartedly with the underlying motive for the amendment; namely, that the objectives should not provide for an actual deterioration in water quality and that the quality objective system should be used for the progressive improvement of water quality to which this Government—and I believe this Chamber—are committed. This is something which has already been secured by the opening words of Clause 102(1) which state that the power to set and review objectives is to be used:
"For the purpose of maintaining and improving the quality of controlled waters".
However, I suggest to the Committee that the precise wording of the amendment is unrealistically rigid. Perhaps the Committee will permit me to give a few illustrations. Sometimes there may be major catchment improvement programmes. The massive current investment programme on the Mersey is a case in point where integrated improvement programmes for the overall catchment may entail that, as particular works are commissioned and de-commissioned, some short-term lowering of standards on particular stretches may be an inevitable step towards the achievement of longer term goals. There can be cases in which short-term lowering of objectives for five years for a particular stretch of river may be the inescapable consequence

189
of the effective management of a 10- or 20-year improvement programme for an overall catchment.
I suggest that it would be quite unrealistic to impose tight restrictions in the legislation which rules out occasional local variations of that kind. While we are on the subject of the Mersey, I think that it is worth reminding the Committee—and I hope that I am correct in using these figures since I speak without having the information to hand—that the Mersey project is a £4 billion project over some 25 years. So it is a massive long-term programme to improve the waters quite substantially. However, during that period there may have to be times—very short periods—when the objectives for certain stretches of water are reduced in order that the overall programme can continue and we achieve the result that we all want at the end of the day.
Pollution accidents may make an objective effectively unattainable over the period stipulated. Equally, hydrological conditions can change in unforeseen and unforeseeable ways. Frankly, there may be circumstances—although we would expect them to be very rare—where stated objectives for perhaps five years ahead may have inescapably to be adjusted downwards because of unforeseeable changes in circumstances while the problems are tackled. I do not think that that is totally unreasonable.
I suggest that we must not place on the Secretary of State and the NRA an impracticable straitjacket. It is surely the right approach to do what the Bill does: to require that the Secretary of State be guided in his setting and review of objectives by the overall aim of maintaining and improving water quality but to accept—and the amendments do not do so—that in cases it may be right and perfectly consistent with that overall objective to leave some scope for accepting lower objectives consistent with that general policy in special circumstances for particular periods of time.
On the objective of self-purification, we accept that that will usually be appropriate. However, the time taken to achieve it may not be capable of specification. We need to attach realistic time-scales to objectives if the system is to operate effectively. Further, I cannot give the Committee the assurance that it will in all cases be a practical objective capable of realistic achievement. For that reason, we should not add this obligation to the Bill. I believe that the terms we have in the Bill are right. The Secretary of State is required to exercise all his powers for the maintenance and improvement of water quality. That is already a formidable obligation on him.
I should like to refer to the point the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised about the 95 per cent. The 95 per cent. is the UK figure; the 90 per cent. is the England and Wales figure. We were both right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am always grateful for such acknowledgment. I know that the Minister is invariably right on questions of facts from the Ministry. However, he has certainly resolved a puzzle in my mind.
190
I am satisfied to withdraw my amendment on these grounds. The amendment seeks to strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State. However, the Minister is saying this. The Secretary of State has these powers. There will be times when he wants to give other people some flexibility to achieve the objective within the overall aims. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In five years' time, if this Bill becomes an Act in its present form and things go wrong as a result of people getting away with things or being lax, the public will not be looking ultimately to Acts of Parliament or to individuals. They will say that the Government—the Secretary of State—have failed to protect them.
I accept the point that the Minister is making. One can go only so far in such a massive Bill. The Minister has assured me that it is the intention of government and of the Secretary of State to ensure that the standards that were in place before the Bill becomes an Act at least will be maintained and improved. That is the objective. The Minister nods his head. I am satisfied with what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 362DAB, 362AB and 362ABA not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 362AC:
Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("General duties in respect of controlled water.

.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to promote a national policy for controlled water in England and Wales and so to exercise his powers under this Part as to secure the maintenance and improvement of the quality of such waters in England and Wales.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to exercise its powers under this Part so as to achieve the objectives specified in subsection (1) above.

(3) In subsection (1) above, "controlled waters" has the same meaning as that afforded by section 100 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is very similar to the one that we debated at the beginning of our proceedings today. I do not intend to bore Members of the Committee by going through that discussion again. I intend to study very closely in the Official Report what the noble Earl said.
On this occasion I merely say to him that if he will give as much attention to his duties to improve the quality of rivers as I am sure he will give to saving the African elephant, we shall all be very pleased. I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 362AC not moved.]
Clause 103 [General duties to achieve and maintain objectives etc.):
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 362B:
Page 112, line 11, after ("state") insert ("and of the Director").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I speak to Amendments Nos. 362C, 362CA, 362CB and 362D. Amendment No. 362B seeks to include the director general as well as the Secretary of State

191
under the duties which they are both supposed to perform. Amendment No. 362CA replaces the negative duty of monitoring the extent of pollution with a positive duty to monitor for water quality, and in particular extends the duty to the consideration of natural contaminants—pollution being regarded as a man-made phenomenon—and to look at other changes in its quality.
Amendment No. 362D deals with the riparian owner who pollutes. Perhaps I may go into this in a little more detail. I am told that in common law a landowner whose land is situated on the banks of a river can discharge effluent into it. If he does so in the same way for more than 20 years he can acquire a legal right to pollute that river even if it adversely affects owners further downstream. These rights are subject to the statutory controls imposed by the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and now by Clause 104 of this Bill.
If a consent is granted for less pollution than he has been discharging, he must comply with it. His common law right will be no defence in a criminal case. Therefore many of these rights will have no effect. However, some still exist, either because they are not considered important or for some other reason. In these more environmentally conscious days, the existence of these rights is no longer relevant. It encourages people to pollute rather than to take pollution control measures. I suggest to Members of the Committee that these rights should be abolished. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: Amendment No. 362CB, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is grouped with these other amendments. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word about it now.
Amendment No. 362CB builds on the duty of the National Rivers Authority established in Clause 103(2) to monitor the extent of pollution in controlled waters after the objectives have been set for different classifications under Clause 102. The amendment suggests that in addition to monitoring pollution, the National Rivers Authority should also have a role in monitoring compliance in achieving these objectives within any time-limits set out in Clause 102.
The amendment provides a further opportunity for the Government to state their position as to the likely timetable for achieving water quality objectives. That is clearly as essential an element in a successful programme as the setting of the objectives themselves.
With this amendment the limited proposal is made that where any timetable has been established by the Secretary of State, the authority should have the day-to-day role of monitoring compliance with the deadlines under Clause 103. We believe that it is a logical way of strengthening Clause 103. The clause is intended to give the Secretary of State and the authority duties to ensure that the water quality objectives are achieved. The authority is given the day-to-day functions. There would seem to be little point in monitoring pollution, assuming that the
192
intention is to undertake a programme of improvement, without setting out some form of timetable within which such improvements are expected to take place. Where any such timetable is established by the Secretary of State, whether at the outset or in succeeding years as the need becomes more apparent, the amendment states that it should be clearly the authority that has the role of measuring its progress.
I believe that with those remarks I have said enough to elicit what I hope will be a sympathetic reply from the Minister.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Somers: I am speaking to Amendment No. 362CA only. I believe that it is a reasonable amendment. We all know that, apart from pollution, water has contents which affect its quality; for example, calcium, magnesium and so forth. A proportion of those contents would affect the quality of the water, quite apart from any pollution involved.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment refers to Clause 103, which places a general duty on the Secretary of State and the NRA to use all their powers to achieve water quality and to monitor the quality of controlled waters.
Amendment No. 363B seeks to extend to the director the duty of the Secretary of State and NRA to exercise all their pollution control powers to secure, so far as it is possible to do so, that the water quality objectives set out under Clause 102 are achieved. Amendment No. 362C seeks to extend the powers to be used for this purpose to include not only the powers in Part I of Chapter 3 but all their powers in the Bill.
The two amendments are closely linked in that, since the director general has no pollution control powers, extension of the duty to him depends upon the widening of the powers in the Bill to be used for this purpose beyond those simply for pollution control. I will nevertheless deal with the amendments separately and on their merits.
Let me deal first with extension of the duty to the director general. I suggest that placing direct environmental obligations upon him would compromise the clear and balanced structure of the legislation. His role is to deal with the financial regulations of the companies and the protection of the consumer. Environmental standards and policies are for the Secretary of State and the NRA.
That is not to say that the director general is not involved in the implementation of environmental goals, but his involvement is indirect. He has to secure that the companies duly perform their duties and functions and are able to finance their performance. He must ensure that environmental costs are properly carried. The proposals in the Bill already secure this. There are appropriate environmental obligations for the director general but they are necessarily indirect and second-order.To give him direct environmental responsibility in parallel with the Secretary of State and NRA would cause muddle and confusion and weaken rather than strengthen the different but complementary roles of

193
all three. I could go so far as to say that it would muddy the waters!
Let me turn now to the proposal that the Secretary of State and the NRA should be obliged to exercise all their powers in the Bill to achieve the quality objectives rather than just those related to pollution. That possibility was the subject of long and careful consideration; but on balance our conclusion was that it would not be sensible or helpful.
The basic consideration is that we believe that it would cause distortions in decision-making. There are two aspects of this. First, the various powers related to the different functions of the NRA are there to achieve the purposes of those functions. Fisheries powers are for the improvement of the fisheries, land drainage powers for land drainage purposes, and so on. It could complicate the performance of those functions if the powers had at the same time to be used for the reduction of pollution; but in any case, the second consideration is that this position would be unsatisfactory in pollution control terms. We expect pollution control powers to be used to reduce pollution. If the NRA had an obligation to use the other powers for pollution control, it could well decide to avoid the vigorous use of pollution controls, which is the proper way to tackle pollution problems. The costs of controlling pollution could then be passed on to others rather than rest with those causing the pollution or benefiting from its control.
Our conclusion is that pollution should be controlled by the vigorous use of pollution powers. The NRA can, and no doubt will, exercise its other powers and functions in a manner compatible with effective pollution; but we believe that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State and NRA to have to apply their other powers and functions to this purpose, in spite of the importance that we attach to it.
Clause 103(2) places a general duty on the NRA to monitor controlled waters. This is a new obligation which is not included explicitly in current legislation in respect of the water authorities and we attach great importance to it. I shall deal with the two proposed amendments separately.
Amendment No. 362CA proposed that duty should be expressed as "monitoring the quality of controlled waters" rather than "monitoring the extent of pollution in". We do not accept this amendment because we believe that it could narrow the terms of the provision. Monitoring quality is vague and unspecific. By contrast, monitoring the extent of pollution will require the NRA to identify the presence of polluting substances and their degree of prevalence. That surely is what is required, as I believe the proposers will agree.
Amendment No. 362CB would require specifically that the NRA monitor compliance with time limits for achieving water quality objectives under Clause 102. This amendment is unnecessary.
The monitoring duty in Clause 103 is in respect of the authority's functions under the Bill. It is one of its functions to exercise its powers to achieve the quality objectives in Clause 102. An obligation on the NRA to monitor water to determine how far
194
the objectives are achieved is therefore already an inescapable aspect of Clause 103(2). So far as timetables are an essential aspect of the objectives, they are also covered. Moreover, so that their monitoring obligations can be discharged, Clause 101 provides that the Secretary of State may specify in the water quality classification regulation the sampling requirements for determining whether quality objectives have been achieved.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 362B, which raises a more general point. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that, apart from as provided in the Bill, no right to pollute water shall be lawful. The Control of Pollution Act now, and the Bill in due course, provides a full and effective framework for the regulation of pollution. Clause 104 contains a comprehensive list of offences to which Clause 105(1) provides limited defences. They are all cases where in one form or another the extent of pollution permitted is subject, or has been subject, to regulation.
I have listened with interest to what Members of the Committee have said. We shall look with interest at the points that they have made. In the light of the clarification and assurances that I have given on each of the amendments, I hope that the noble Lords will find it possible not to move their amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the Minister for his response to Amendment No. 362CB. The gist of what he said appears to be that the amendment, as it stands, is unnecessary and that we should be well advised not to move it. In a sense, that is a reassurance. I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that I shall study his reassurance in the Official Report with a view to deciding whether it is a complete reassurance. If necessary, we can come back to it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I do not propose to move the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I thank the Minister for his interesting and informative response. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I want to study it. I believe that it was helpful. I also welcome the Minister's assurance on Amendment No. 362D (the role of the riparian owner) that he will look at the point to see whether there is a gap in the common law and that someone might have the right, despite all the controls in the control of Pollution Act and in the Bill, to evade the controls which we all desperately want to see imposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 362C to 362D not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Offences of polluting controlled waters etc.]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 362DA:
Page 113, line 9, at end insert, ("or (aa) the Authority in an emergency, has served notice on that person prohibiting him from making the discharge;").
The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to give the authority power to make a rapid response to what it judges to be an emergency. The

195
reasoning behind it is that quick and comprehensive action can be far better than any cure. It would allow an authority, for example, if it found that a farmer had placed a large amount of raw silage on land and had dug a channel leading to a river course, to order the removal of the liquid from the silage. The provision would allow the authorities to make an immediate order stopping him from allowing the fluid to run into the water.
Under the current situation, the authority would have to give three months' notice. By then, even though an offence would have been committed under Clause 104(1)(a), the offence would still be committed, because nothing could have been done in time to prevent it being committed. I suggest that the amendment is designed to be helpful because it would give powers for quick action to prevent any damage occurring. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment, unless he can give very strong reasons for saying that it is not necessary. If Members of the Committee look at the earlier paragraphs of the subsection, they will see that:
"the Authority has given that person not less than three months' notice prohibiting him from making",
the discharge or continuing it and certain other circumstances. For example, in paragraph (c) it says:
"the effluent or matter discharged contains a prescribed substance or a prescribed concentration of such a substance".
In passing, perhaps I may say that it seems to me as though it ought to be "proscribed", which means "forbidden". That is what the Government are trying to do—to forbid particular substances from being discharged. Therefore I think that in any event that paragraph should be looked at. However, I realise that that is a point outside the amendment and I make it only in passing.
It would be absurd if the authority came to hear that it was intended to discharge something really damaging into controlled water and then found that it had to give not less than three months' notice to stop it. That would be absurd. So we must have some way of dealing with emergencies.
The Earl of Caithness: I have to say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I have no strong reasons for resisting the amendment. In fact, I think it is rather a good one and that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had some good points when he moved it. If he will withdraw the amendment perhaps he will please accept my assurance that I should like to consider the wording of the amendment with a view to coming back at a later stage to meet the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies to that splendid invitation, may I ask my noble friend whether he will bear in mind the sense of using the word "proscribed" rather than "prescribed"? I know that "prescribed" is something described in regulations, as a rule, but it also means "recommended", like a doctor's prescription. Here we really need "proscribed", I think.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall do more than bear it in mind. I shall ask those who advise me to look at it.
Lord Addington: As the Minister has given such a favourable response and his assurance that he will take action along these lines, I can do nothing other than to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 362E:
Page 113, line 39, at end insert—
("(6) For these purposes of subsection (5) above it shall be a separate offence for a person to contravene each condition of a consent that relates—

(a) to any substance specified in List I or List II in the Annex to EC directive 76/464/EEC; or

(b) to the temperature of the discharge; or

(c) to the volume of the discharge; or

(d) to the amount of suspended solids in the discharge.").

The noble Lord said: I think I would be better off if I left everything to my colleague on this Bench! The amendment takes a little further the principle of the polluter pays which I hope will also meet with a gleam in the eye of the noble Earl. I understand that in a recent case a polluter was charged with an offence under what would now be Clause 104 of the Bill. He breached a number of conditions in his consent, but in fact he could only be found guilty of one offence. The case I refer to was the Severn and Trent Water Authority v. Express Foods Group Limited. I gather it took place in the Divisional Court on 19th October last year.
The amendment sets out to remedy that situation, not—I hasten to say—by making the breach of each condition an offence, but by singling out the most important ones. We list four in the amendment. If the amendment were to be passed, it would mean that a polluter who breached, say, 10 conditions of his consent, five of which were within the list contained in the amendment, would be liable to fines of up to £ 10,000, instead of only £2,000 as at present. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I am just wondering what the position would be if there were some serious change to the directive mentioned in the amendment. Perhaps it ought to be redrafted in such a way that it does not refer to a particular directive or annex to it. What happens if it is all changed?
The Earl of Caithness: When I first looked at the amendment, I thought it looked rather attractive. There may be a certain justice in the effect it seeks to achieve—that if a consent is breached in respect of a number of its terms, those separate breaches should be regarded as separate offences. But having thought about it a little more, I find it to be inconsistent with the way in which the offence provisions are structured, both in the Bill and in the current Control of Pollution Act 1974 and, I suggest, the way in which it is best structured to be understood and effective. That is in the legislation—in the Bill before us.

197
Under the Bill, the offence is to make a discharge, without a consent, or outside its terms. For the purpose of that offence it is irrelevant whether the discharge is outside the consent in one respect or many. The alternative, to which this amendment points, is to create a new and separate offence of breaking individual consent terms. But I suggest that this is quite unnecessary, and would complicate the legislation to no benefit. If the noble Lord's intention is to have the courts take account of the relative severity of a breach, or the number of aspects of it, then they can, and regularly do that in sentencing. While breach of any single aspect of a consent makes a discharge illegal, clearly a court should have regard for the number of such breaches. But I repeat, the creation of separate offences is unnecessary for this.
Moreover the amendment could be counter-productive. Our aim must be to have dischargers comply in all respects. That aim is better served by a simple, clear-cut line between legality and illegality, rather than introducing a situation of multiple offences where a discharge may be held to be illegal on only one criterion.
I think that the Committee might agree that it is a question of balance. We believe that the balance is in favour of the legislation before us and the existing enactments rather than the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I am afraid I am unaware of the fine limit, so perhaps he could answer this question. Is there a fine limit of £2,000 for breach of these terms or is the limit open to the courts to decide? Personally, I do not know.
The Earl of Caithness: In a serious case it will always be open to the NRA or other prosecutor to proceed on indictment when, if convicted, an unlimited fine or imprisonment can be imposed.
Lord Ross of Newport: I hope that we shall not start putting too many people in prison. I am pleased to hear that there is that provision and I also accept the fact that the amendment could be criticised because the directive numbers could change and problems of that kind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 362F:
Page 113, line 39, at end insert—
("(6) Where the Authority apprehends that a contravention of subsection (1) of this section (whether a new contravention or a repetition or continuation of one which has already occurred) is likely to occur, the Authority may apply to the Court and the Court (if satisfied of the matters complained of by the Authority) may make an order designed to prevent, remove or otherwise eliminate the grounds of complaint, or such other order as the Court thinks fit.").
The noble Earl said: This is a topic which I raised in my Second Reading speech. It can be summed up briefly by the word "injunction". It seems appropriate that it should be brought forward here. I am prompted to introduce the amendment by my experience in the Anglian Water Authority, but it is perfectly clear just from reading almost any
198
newspaper these days that similar events create difficulties in all water authorities. I therefore consider this issue to be very relevant indeed to the controls and powers of the future national regulatory authority; that is to say, the NRA.
An example from the Anglian Water experience is a major pollution incident in our rivers caused by pig slurry which polluted 40 kilometres of river and resulted in the death of thousands offish. The farmer concerned is liable to prosecution, but in this case he had already been fined for similar discharges by the courts on four separate occasions.
In such instances it seems unlikely that the fines are sufficiently deterrent to prevent the circumstances which allow pollution to occur. As in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, we are trying to anticipate pollution rather than to control it. Nonetheless, it is an instance in which the National Rivers Authority will have good grounds for anticipating pollution.
The effect of the subsection which it is proposed to introduce at the end of Clause 104 would be to allow for an injunction from the courts. Clearly, it is essential that the use of the injunction should be restricted to appropriate cases and should be subject to careful safeguards. In this case, the ultimate decision on whether an injunction should be granted will be a matter for a judge.
At the moment the only recourse open to the water authorities is to bring criminal proceedings. They are often slow, sometimes taking six months or a year to come to court. Again, the fines imposed are apparently an inadequate deterrent and do not force the potential polluter to take the necessary remedial action in the form of constructions. It will be constructions to limit the possibility of effluent from, for instance, a pig slurry or a silage clamp. It is unlikely that such powers will be used other than rarely. Nonetheless, it seems appropriate that they should be available to the NRA in the future.
Moreover, I am advised that such powers are not new. Under Section 3 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 such powers were within the capabilities of the previous river authorities. However, they were not carried forward by the Control of Pollution Act in 1974. I hope that my noble friend will also find this amendment attractive. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I too hope that something will be done along these lines, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Of course, there is a slight complexity due to two factors. First, we tend to keep our criminal and civil procedures entirely separate. However, there is a great deal to be said for those trying criminal cases to have the power to issue injunctions. The second problem is that under the general common law—which still prevails unless altered by statute—if there are both civil and criminal remedies which are concurrent the civil court cannot deal with the matter until the criminal court has done so. Therefore an absurd situation could arise in which, although an injunction is obviously necessary, the criminal court has no power to grant one and the civil court cannot deal with the matter until the criminal court has done so.

199
We need to look at this matter as a matter of practicality. While agreeing that something along the lines suggested in the amendment needs to be done, it needs to be considered in the light of the factors which I have dared to mention.
The Earl of Caithness: I understand the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, particularly in the light of his experience with the Anglian Water Authority. However, I wonder whether he will be convinced that Clause 111 provides the necessary powers for the NRA to take emergency work measures to forestall or remedy pollution without recourse to the courts.
Having listened to my noble friend, I believe that we can rely on that clause for dealing with most of the cases which he has raised. Of course, my noble friend Lord Renton is right in saying that what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is seeking to do goes much wider than the Bill. That is because it involves the whole of the criminal and civil law poceedings. As a result of my experience in the last department in which I had the honour to serve, I recall that issue as being most complicated. I know that if we were to try to alter what stands at the moment some very extensive consultations would be required.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I have had a quick look at Clause 111 and I see that it gives powers to the NRA to take remedial action and to recover the expenses reasonably incurred in doing so from any person, in this case the potential polluter. That is not exactly the same as requiring the potential polluter to take the action. In the circumstances, it might be effective but it is not exactly the same thing.
I bow to the greatly superior knowledge of my noble friend Lord Renton on matters of law. From that point of view I appear to be on shaky ground. I believe that the issue is still alive, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Authority for discharges and other defences for the purposes of section 104]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 362G:
Page 113, line 47, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: The amendment relates to a different issue which was raised in another place on 22nd March by Mr. Tim Boswell; therefore I do not need to explain it at length. We are concerned with defences against allowing polluting effluents.
The defence contained in the Bill at present is that the polluter holds a valid waste disposal licence. In the view of the Anglian Water Auhority that is a large loophole in the legislation which enables an unscrupulous discharger to avoid the full implications of what he is doing. The site disposal licence is given by the local authority, not the water authority.
The operator requires only a site disposal licence in order to run a waste disposal site. I could be a site for the disposal of a variety of wastes. However, as has so often been reiterated in debates on waste in this House, I remind Members that some of the most noxious effluents arise from perfectly "harmless" household wastes of the normal variety. Some of those extremely noxious effluents can have a damaging effect on the aquatic environment. More than the leachate which issues from an active pit is a problem of leachate which comes from a pit which has been closed.
Real problems can arise from waste disposal sites in such circumstances. Anglian Water Authority has experience of pollution not only of surface water courses but also of ground water supplies. It seems wrong that the site disposal licence should continue to protect a polluter from prosecution. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: In replying to Amendment No. 362G, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 363 and 364. The effect of this amendment, No. 362G, would be to remove the exemption available in the Bill as drafted in respect of all pollution offences in Clause 104 provided by possession of a waste disposal licence under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act.
We believe this amendment goes too far. The following amendments coming before the Committee provide that such exemption shall not apply in respect of discharges of trade or sewage effluent or other matter on waste disposal sites. But we believe that an exemption should be available in respect of casual entries of polluting matter under Clause 104(1)(a), because these are essentially matters which will be covered by the site licence granted to a disposal site. The water authorities now, and the NRA in due course, are statutory consultees able to require, subject to the final view of the Secretary of State, inclusion in the licence of any particular conditions they consider necessary for preventing water pollution. If the amendment was accepted we would have the unsatisfactory result that a site licence holder could be prosecuted for pollution even though he was complying with conditions of a licence, agreed by the NRA, intended to prevent such pollution. That surely cannot be right.
By the following amendment we shall be asking the Committee to achieve half this amendment; that is, that a site licence should not provide a defence in respect of discharges under Clause 104(1)(b), (c) and (d). That will mean that the NRA will have direct control of all discharges on waste disposal sites and that the dischargers will need a consent under this Act. That is, I suggest, the right balance, and is consistent with the position in current legislation.
We recognise that there have been criticisms of the working of the pollution control arrangement for land waste sites, and that the water authorities do have concerns about them. These have of course been expressed recently in a report of the environment Select Committee in another place.

201
Nevertheless, we believe the present relation between water pollution and land waste to be basically sound, and that would be substantially reproduced if this amendment is not accepted but the following amendments are.
Amendments Nos. 363 and 364 are technical amendments to the terms of Clause 105.
Clause 105 provides the statutory defences to the water pollution offences in Clause 104. The intention of Amendment No. 363 is to remedy an unintended consequence of our attempt in Clauses 104 and 105 to provide a simpler and more coherent system of offences. This draws together, in Clause 104, the current polluting "entries" and polluting "discharges" offences of the present Sections 31 and 32 of the Control of Pollution Act, and brings together the various defences in Clause 104. This approach has the merit of removing certain doubts as to how the present offences and defences relate. However, in seeking to achieve this we have found that we have inadvertently widened the extent to which a waste disposal licence under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act provides a defence, so that it could cover point source discharges of effluent as well as site run-off and leachate. We do not believe that ordinary discharges to controlled waters should be exempted. They should always require a consent from the NRA. The defence should only apply to the casual pollution which should normally be controlled by the terms of the site licence under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act and for which the NRA will be a statutory consultee. That is the present position and the one we would like to restore.
Turning to Amendment No. 364, our purpose is simple. It is a defence to pollution offences that the action in question was permitted in an emergency to avoid danger to the public. However, we recognise that in some cases the risk may not be to members of the public but to employees of the company in question. They also should be protected, and we propose to achieve this by substituting a reference to danger to "life or health".
I hope that the proposers will feel that this outcome will give them the greater part of what they seek and that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Clearly I welcome the Government's initiative in this way. Equally clearly, it is necessary to look closely at what has been said. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 363:
Page 114, line 5, at end insert—
("but nothing in any disposal licence shall be treated for the purposes of this subsection as authorising any such entry or discharge as is mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 104(1) above or as authorising any act or omission so far as it results in any such entry or discharge.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 364:
Page 114, line 9, leave out ("the public") and insert ("life or health").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 364A:
Page 114, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: Again, this is an issue which I raised in my Second Reading speech, and I thereby gave notice to the Government that I should be bringing forward an amendment. It concerns the discharge of polluting matter from vessels and, again, under the existing words of the Bill, an exemption is provided.
However, it seems to me that the owners of vessels who discharge polluting matters into our rivers should not enjoy immunity from prosecution. For the Anglian Water Authority and the Broads Authority, of which I have recently been appointed a member, this is a serious issue. The Broads Authority has the specific task of preserving and enhancing the environment in its very special waters in East Anglia. I hope that both the Broads Authority and the Anglian Water Authority will receive the support of the Committee on this matter and that the Government will agree to this amendment, so that, yet again, another loophole is plugged. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: It seems to me that the amendment would not only cover rivers but would also cover tidal waters. Yachts in tidal waters would be very seriously and unnecessarily inconvenienced by the width of this amendment. I am not speaking for rivers, but it is generally accepted by marine biologists that the amount of waste generated and discharged through sea toilets in tidal waters is so insignificant in volume as to have no effect whatever on the marine environment. The Southampton Harbour bylaws recognise that. Therefore, it seems to me that perhaps my noble friend may bring forward another amendment to cover rivers, but this is too sweeping an amendment because it also involves tidal harbours. I hope that the Government will not accept this amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I believe that this measure is necessary for rivers. There are certainly such regulations on the River Thames where, of course, there are many vessels. However, it is quite difficult to enforce the regulations. If there is placed on the river management authority the necessity of establishing sanitary stations so that vessels can discharge. That requires a lot of organisation. However, it is essential in the interests of the purity of the river that there should be a regulation of this kind.
Lord Renton: I tend to support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on this matter. As for the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I feel bound to point out that the pollution of the Norfolk Broads, which has caused such trouble and anxiety, was partly and, I believe, considerably due—and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook can say more about this, because it came within the area of the Anglian Water Authority—to discharges from yachts, motor boats and so on which were on the Norfolk Broads. I think that we must be most careful before we give carte blanche to the discharge of effluent from vessels.

203
There is the further point that in, I believe, 1961, we tried to protect the coasts of this country and of neighbouring countries from the discharge of oil from ships at sea. It really would be rather extraordinary if, having passed laws to make that illegal and, where possible, punishable, we were to give carte blanche to discharge of effluent from small boats in our own tidal waters.
Lord Mottistone: I suggest to my noble friend that it is confusing the issue to bring in the question of oil at sea. We are discussing tidal waters and yachts. My noble friend is suggesting that it is a new privilege, as it were, which is to be given; all we are seeking is to make sure that the status quo continues.
Lord Renton: All I can say is that pollution is pollution, whatever the cause, and we should try to be consistent in the laws that we pass.
The Earl of Radnor: I briefly support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I do not think that we want to keep a status quo. I recently read in the newspapers—as no doubt did other noble Lords—that the River Hamble, which is tidal, is no longer healthy. I think the papers gave the percentage of water to sewage. It is time the matter was tackled.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I live in Norfolk and one can occasionally see on the Broads some unpleasant messes appearing in the wake of cabin cruisers. That cannot be helping the environment. There is not only the effluent but the materials, such as bleach, used to clean the toilets on board the boats. I suggest that such unpleasant cocktails going into a natural water environment should be stopped as soon as possible.
Lord Ross of Newport: I do not wish to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Mottistone—if I may call him that across the Floor of the Committee—but I should like to ask about our canals. It is a long time since I took my family on the canals, and they kept falling in. More and more people are taking cruising holidays on canals. I believe that it is prohibited to excrete into the canals but I cannot see us putting toilet facilities of one kind or another at one-mile intervals.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, struck the right point, in that we do need the provision of these facilities. They should be available at regular intervals on our inland waterways every bit as much as for yachtsmen and others.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: Very simply, this amendment, by deleting subsection (3) of Clause 105, would make it a criminal offence for any boat to discharge effluent into any controlled waters, which includes the sea up to three miles out.
When the full practical implications of this amendment are considered I think it becomes clear that it should be rejected. There are, for example,
204
many thousands of small boats containing sanitary appliances which discharge directly into water. The flushing of a lavatory on a boat well out to sea is hardly something which should constitute a criminal offence. Nor would it be other than a bureaucratic nightmare to require the boat owner to secure himself against a prosecution by obtaining a consent from the NRA to flush his lavatory while at sea.
Of course, there are coastal and inland waters where the last thing one would want would be boats discharging their sewage into the water. These waters are best protected by by-laws. Accordingly, Clause 110 empowers the National Rivers Authority to make by-laws prohibiting or regulating the keeping or use on any controlled waters of vessels provided with sanitary appliances which discharge direct to water. For good measure the by-laws can also prohibit or regulate the washing or cleaning of boats or any other things in controlled waters.
This system of dealing with effluent from boats is a proven success. Vessels are regulated by by-laws which currently afford protection to such waters as the Norfolk Broads, Lake Windermere, the Lancaster Canal, and part of the Severn River. Existing by-laws will be preserved by paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 23 to the Bill, and supplemented where necessary by new by-laws made under Clause 106.
Finally, as Members of the Committee may be aware from the introduction to the notes on Clause 110, we are repealing provisions in the 1974 Act which banned from all lakes and rivers boats with sanitary appliances which discharge into water, and at the same time required the water authorities to provide on-shore facilities for the pumping out of non-discharging facilities. These provisions have never been brought into force as they would have entailed disproportionate burdens and costs on boatowners and authorities compared with the environmental benefits which might have occurred. As we said in our 1986 consultation paper, The Water Environment: The Next Steps, the adequate use of by-laws could achieve the same results at less cost. It may be worth noting here that, where by-laws do make on-shore pump-out facilities necessary, the NRA will have the power to provide them under Clause 8(4).
It is for those reasons and arguments that I ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It is of course by the use of by-laws that the Broads—which were disgusting at one stage—have been cleaned up. However, I do not feel that there should be a general freedom for yacht owners to defend themselves or even to claim an ancient right to pump ship anywhere within controlled waters. I believe that under MARPOL V that the North Sea is now declared a protected area and it is in fact contravening the MARPOL regulations to throw waste overboard from any vessel whatever in the waters of the North Sea, which, after all, covers a considerable proportion of the coast.
We are attacking this problem and it is a very real problem. Considerations of this sort reinforce my previous conviction that 12 miles is a reasonable zone to have under consideration. Nonetheless, I

205
recognise that the provision of by-laws, widely applied, can meet this problem. I hope my noble friend will say that he will forcefully encourage the use of by-laws; as, indeed, I hope the NRA will take forceful steps to encourage by-laws under such circumstances. In that case, the anxieties that led me to propose this amendment would appear to be met and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 365:
Page 114, line 20, at end insert ("so long as such mine is not used for the disposal of waste.").
The noble Earl said: This is a simple amendment. In a sense it is a probing amendment. Clause 104 outlines the discharges which are not acceptable and which create an offence. Clause 105 outlines the exceptions. Among those exceptions is water from an abandoned mine. It is probably important to clarify exactly what is an abandoned mine. My understanding is that an abandoned mine is a mine from which the relevant minerals are no longer extracted.
My noble friend will realise that any hole in the ground is worth a lot of money these days. Holes are frequently used for storing waste—often toxic waste. Therefore, it is important to be absolutely certain what is meant by an abandoned mine. If a mine is abandoned because it is no longer being mined, and that is the definition, surely there is a danger that it will be filled with rubbish and the water running from it will create a danger. Therefore, my amendment would make sense. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I hope to be able to reassure my noble friend on this amendment. We consider that it is unnecessary for this reason. If the mine is being actively used for the disposal of waste, those operations would be subject to control under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In any event we consider that the mine may not be said to be abandoned in those circumstances. Therefore, we believe that my noble friend's concerns are already fully covered and nothing would be added to the clarity or effect of the Bill to adopt the amendment. I ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: Indeed, I do not intend to press the amendment. I am at least partially reassured by the Control of Pollution Act but I am not so sure about the other reason given. However, I take my noble friend's word that all will be well and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 105, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may detain the Committee briefly on this matter. This lengthy clause contains a very wide sweep of exemptions from prosecution in cases that would otherwise be offences of pollution and contamination under the Bill. Can my noble friend tell me whether there is any power given to the Secretary of State to amend this clause by
206
regulation? It seems that in the light of experience we may be taking some risks in granting such wide exemptions. If we are to have fresh legislation to cover a situation in which the clause has been seriously abused, and not in minor ways, it would be an awful nuisance to have to wait until we get legislation through both Houses. Normally I would never recommend it, but there should be a power on the part of the Secretary of State to amend this clause by reducing the degree of exemption
Lord Hesketh: There are not the powers by regulation to carry out what my noble friend asks.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Deposits and vegetation in rivers etc]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 366:
Page 115, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to the management of ditch irrigated water meadows or in the proper management of fisheries.").
The noble Earl said: This clause makes it an offence to clear silt and vegetation down river. If you try to get it out, that is all right. I must confess an interest in that I am concerned both with a fishery and with an estate that has some of the very few remaining water meadow farms. I must also confess to a mistake that I hope will be forgiven me. I should have put in my amendment subsection (2) as well as subsection (1). I failed to do that, but I hope that I shall be able to mention the vegetation side of the question. It is very closely wrapped up with silt, if only because vegetation grows on silt and in turn attracts silt.
Perhaps I may start with the fisheries end of the amendment. It is, and has been, a part of good river management, certainly on those streams that grow weed which is for the most part the chalk streams, to clear silt and also from above sluices and hatches. As Members of the Committee will know, the chalk streams of the South are full of hatches. Funnily enough, they are left over from the days when there were a large number of irrigated water meadows.
I feel that it would be totally wrong to put this prohibition on what is in point of fact good and not bad river management just for the sake of a little mud (which is a much simpler name for it) going downstream. What is more, because people look after their rivers and fishing properly, they will continue to do so. There will then be ample opportunity for prosecution by people who feel that they have been offended by the transient cloudiness in the water.
Perhaps I may touch now on the question of vegetation, because the two go together. If you are moving silt you are also moving weed and very often vice versa. Those same streams grow a lot of ranunculus and various other weeds. Not to cut such growth and to let it go would be a very grave mistake. It would ruin the fishing. It would be quite wrong to stop the riparian owners from exercising what they have seen in the past to be good river management practice. That observation would apply also to fishing clubs and organisations of that kind.
I now turn to the ditch-irrigated water meadows. I have given them this name because the name "water meadows" has been abused in recent times. It seems to have become related to any old wetland. These water meadows are very rare now. I believe that there are probably no more than a dozen farms in Wiltshire and Hampshire that operate them. The whole operation is concerned with clearing out silt and vegetation on a fairly massive scale. To pretend that it is not likely to go down stream is absolutely ridiculous. There are one or two farms on which the whole livelihood depends entirely on water meadows. I know of one at least. There is an exception of one dry meadow.
To prohibit this kind of activity would have the same effect concerning the fisheries. The owner or tenant of the water meadows would have to go on doing what he has always done. He would lay himself open to being prosecuted by someone further down river. There is one further interesting point. As I have said, these water meadows are rare. On the particular estate to which I have referred, quite a large block of them has been made into a site of special scientific interest. I believe that there is a statutory requirement to continue operating them in the way in which they have always been operated. Therefore I can see here a definite conflict occurring.
It is no good pretending (because it would be a pretence) that these ditches—or carriers or drawings, as we call them—are for drainage. They are for irrigation. The carriers which are the ditches that bring the water in, sometimes double with the drainage ditches according to how you set the hatches or sluices. The drawings take the water away.
It is a small matter, but I do not believe that when we are making laws we should ignore minorities of any kind. The fisheries question is certainly not a minority one. A huge number of people would be very upset if the rivers cannot be kept as they should be. I believe that there is a real problem here in both areas. The only thing to do is to take the whole matter out of this section and exonerate it, so to speak, from subsections (1) and (2). I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I support what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said, particularly as regards the cutting of weeds. I wish to mention one problem that seems to raise a general issue. It has been represented to me concerning weed cutting in the deeper waters of the River Frome in Dorset. I made inquiries because I was told that riparian owners found that Wessex Water would not cut the weeds, so that they grew all over the river and effectively prevented people from fishing. In addition, the water authority would not allow riparian owners to cut the weeds. I inquired about this through the Water Authorities Association and, after making inquiries with Wessex Water, I was told by the association that in the deeper waters weed cutting takes place in the autumn, which is reckoned to be the most cost-effective time. That is the point I wish to ask about. Wessex Water said:
"While the fishing might be affected, the fishery is not. . . The implications of transferring weed cutting to the NRA budget are substantial in financial terms especially if cutting had to be done twice to accommodate fisheries and land drainage requirements".
208
To take the line that it is all right to cut the weeds in the autumn, and that this preserves the fishery but not the fishing, seems to be inconsistent with the authority's obligation to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. This is my main point. If the Government are not able to answer it now I should be grateful if they would look into it and write to me.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have great sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, had to say. He said it with great knowledge, which I do not possess. However, in his amendment he refers to,
"the proper management of fisheries".
What exactly does he mean by that? I know from my role as a chairman of Wildlife Link that there is growing concern about fish farming in Scotland and in England too. There are problems in some of the rivers. In the Tess, trout farming is causing problems to ordinary fishermen on the river banks. It is causing pollution. I assume that by,
"the proper management of fisheries",
the noble Earl means that fish farming should be properly controlled and kept clean. Perhaps the noble Earl will answer that point.
The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps I may clear up that matter. As the noble Lord probably knows, I am a fish farmer. By "fisheries" I mean a sport fishery and not a fish farm.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment seeks to provide that the offence of removing deposits from the bed of inland waters shall not apply to the management of ditch irrigate water meadows or in the proper management of fisheries. However, I understand my noble friend to have in mind also the offence, in the same cause, relating to cutting of vegetation, and my remarks will cover that also.
We recognise that this issue can be a matter of concern to those involved in agriculture in certain of the chalkland areas of southern England. We cannot accept the amendment but I hope that what I am able to say can offer some reassurance.
It should be clear that the water meadows themselves, which may be covered by water only a very few days each year, do not fall within the term "inland waters", and nothing done within these meadows will be caught by Clause 106. The ditches which serve the meadows are, however, inland waters, and it is the Government's view that they should be subject to the offence provision, for the disturbing of mud in such ditches may harm fisheries in rivers when the ditch water flows into the rivers. However, the consent of the NRA can be sought for these operations, and depending on the circumstances of the case we believe that the authority will not want to interfere with acceptable practices carried out with due care. But it seems to us right that the NRA should be able to regulate these matters.
We see some difficulty in the proposal that the offence should not apply to anything done in the management of fisheries. The fact is that the main

209
purpose of Clause 106 is the proper protection of fisheries. One would hope therefore that nothing done by anyone involved in the management of fisheries would cause damage to other fisheries further downstream. But that possibility remains. We believe therefore that it would not be appropriate to exclude things done in the management of fisheries from the scope of the offence. I emphasise again that the NRA's consent can be obtained in relevant circumstances.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I certainly do not intend to press the amendment but I am not immensely impressed by the reply which my noble friend has been able to give me. Perhaps I may start at the other end this time with the water meadows. It would be quite wrong if anyone whose livelihood depended on the water meadows had to go to the NRA to see whether he could support himself in that way. That would not be right.
I appreciate the point about irritation downstream but I do not appreciate that fisheries are harmed downstream by shifting silt and weed. So often when water auhorities take weed out a nasty position arises. The water authority puts out a boom, it catches two-thirds of the weed and the rest is left to cause just as much nuisance as all of it did before. It is then put in a great heap on the bank. Then, much to everybody's surprise, it makes silage. The silage makes silage effluent which is right on the edge of the river. There must then be work to deal with it. This point worries me. I shall certainly withdraw the amendment but I reserve my position for another stage of the Bill in case I can think of some way to get round what is still an unsatisfactory position.
The Earl of Arran: I understand my noble friend's point but we consider that it is within the good sense of the NRA to regulate in such matters. I should like to answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I can tell him that Wessex Water has a policy of not cutting weeds in spring because it is thought severely to affect fish spawning.
The Earl of Radnor: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Requirements to take precautions against pollution]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 116, line 13, leave out from ("be") to end of line 15 and insert ("a continuing offence the maximum penalty for which shall not exceed £ 1,000 daily.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to introduce a system of penalties for pollution offences which reflect the damage done to the environment and the cost of remedial works. The amendment is tabled because of the low level of fines which are
210
currently being levied in certain courts. At present the maximum fine for pollution offences is £2,000 per occurrence, which is low enough in itself, yet the average fine actually levied is sometimes only a few hundred pounds. In the case of North- West Water v. Derbyshire County Council the water authority was fined £750 per offence. In the case of large industrial concerns it may even be cheaper for the company to pay fines on a regular basis than to undertake the level of investment necessary to resolve the problem. By contrast, the damage done by a single pollution incident may run into many thousands of pounds especially if extensive fisheries are wiped out.
The amendment seeks to introduce a system which is now used in certain other countries whereby polluters are fined on a daily basis if the offence is a recurring one, thereby providing an incentive for the polluter to remedy the problem as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I should like to speak in support of the amendment and also speak to Amendment No. 366B which stands in my name. My amendment seeks to do the same job. It seeks to ensure that the fines imposed bite more heavily than those imposed at the moment. As the noble Lord has suggested, on some occasions it may be more economically viable, because of the low fines, for someone to carry on incurring fines and not do anything about the problem. That is unacceptable and something must be done extremely quickly if we are to have any impact on people who are deliberately making money out of breaking pollution regulations.
The Earl of Caithness: We have already announced our intention to introduce regulations under Clause 107 to govern construction standards for silage and slurry stores, which are the two most common causes of pollution from farm waste, and also oil storage facilities. Under the regulations the NRA will not only be able to require new facilities to meet satisfactory design standards but will also be able to serve improvement notices on farmers and others with existing installations which are thought to pose significant pollution risks. Contravention of the regulations will be an offence, subject to the normal maximum penalties for pollution offences set out in Clause 104. Thus, the maximum fine on summary conviction would be £2,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. It would also be open to the NRA to take the case to a higher court where unlimited fines are available, or terms of imprisonment not exceeding two years.
However, the important point to stress here is that these penalties relate to failure to take action designed to reduce pollution risks, rather than causing pollution to take place. Of course, in cases where failure to comply with the regulations leads to a pollution incident—for example, a leak from a slurry lagoon pollutes the local river and kills the fish—the farmer is also open to prosecution by the NRA for a pollution offence under Clause 104. Indeed, in those circumstances, he can be prosecuted on two counts: both for the pollution offence which he has committed, and for the failure to comply with the regulations under Clause 107.

211
It is also a mistake to concentrate simply on the fines involved since an important part of the polluter pays principle is that those who pollute our rivers and harm aquatic life, in the case of pollution incidents, should pay for the cost of clearing up the results. Such costs can often be very much greater than the penalty itself and together they can act as a major deterrent to would-be polluters. I am sure that that is a provision which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would wish to remain in the Bill.
I believe that these amendments should be rejected on three counts. First, I believe that it is wrong in principle to have higher penalties for breaching regulations designed to reduce pollution risks than for actual pollution of the waters concerned. For that reason I believe that there should be consistency between the maximum penalties which apply under Clause 107 and those which apply under Clause 104, in relation to actual pollution of controlled waters. Otherwise, under these amendments, we would have a situation in which someone who had not caused any pollution, but who had taken some days to bring his storage facilities up to standard, could end up paying fines many times higher than those which an actual polluter who had damaged the river would be liable for. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, can justify that in equity terms. I cannot.
Secondly, those who breach regulations designed to reduce pollution risks are at risk of prosecution, not only in respect of contravention of the regulations themselves but also in respect of any pollution which occurs as a result of their failure to bring their facilities up to the required standard. In such cases the NRA may well choose to prosecute on two counts.
Thirdly, and finally, in cases where a particular series of breach of regulations has occurred, the NRA may well want to take the case of indictment to a higher court where unlimited penalties are available.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Earl for the reply which he made to Amendment No. 366A and also, I take it, to Amendment No. 366B. The assurances he has given about the provisions which the National Rivers Authority will have under Clauses 104 and 107 are good. To that extent we are grateful to him for giving such assurances.
However, I think that the Minister skirted around the unsatisfactory position at present where courts, according to our best intelligence, are not making full use of the penalties that they could impose. Moreover, for reasons best known to themselves, they appear to be levying fines which in certain instances, having regard to the nature of the offenders—for example, a regional water authority—could be regarded as derisory. I am not sure that that problem is entirely covered by the assurances which the noble Earl gave us in reply to the amendment.
Also left out of the noble Earl's response was the question of time. It seems to us that where these problems arise time is of the essence. While the detailed provisions which the noble Earl described will undoubtedly deal with the problem in time, they
212
will not, so far as I can see, deal with certain problems speedily. They will also not deal with such problems in a manner which we think is necessary in order not merely to deal with a particular incident but also to ensure that it is not prolonged by reason of discussion and by reason of proposals which, although they may eventually solve the problem, may take time to do so. In consequence, the principle of the polluter paying would to some extent be frustrated. Moreover, the noble Earl did not explain why the concept of a daily fine is not acceptable in this country, whereas it is apparently acceptable in certain other countries.
However, in the light of all the Minister has said in reply, I shall undertake to look in detail at his reply and reserve the right, if I am so advised, to return to the matter at the next stage of the proceedings on the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 366B not moved.]
Clause 107 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 108 [Water protection zones]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 367:
Page 116, line 17, leave out ("any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter from entering") and insert ("or controlling the entry of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 367 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 371 A. These are two small technical amendments to Clause 108, which provides powers for the establishment and operation of water protection zones for the regulation in designated areas of practices likely to cause pollution.
The effect of Amendment No. 367 is simply to provide a wider formulation of the purposes which the zones may serve—not only to prevent but also to control the entry of polluting matter. The practical effects of the amendment are unlikely to be substantial, but we believe a wide formulation is desirable.
Amendment No. 371A is also a technical amendment. Schedule 7 provides that copies of notices establishing protection zones shall be served on relevant local authorities, who obviously have an interest in the matter. This amendment simply secures that copies of any notices modifying such zones shall also be served on the authorities. I commend the proposals to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 367A:
Page 116, line 19, after ("activities") insert ("including planting of conifer forests and operations in abandoned mines,").
The noble Lord said: I think that the amendment which has just been moved may possibly cover the point that I wish to raise, which is purely a probing one. We are talking about water protection zones which are mainly designed, as I understand it, to stop

213
pollution by nitrates. What we seek is an undertaking from the Government that when they are prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of a particular area of activity (although I think the wording has been slightly amended) they are looking at the possibility of pollution from dumping in an abandoned mine and possibly—I know this is controversial to some Members on the other side of the Committee—also from the planting of coniferous forests. I think that this point was raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I believe we received some sympathy from the Government earlier on this matter. It seems that there is evidence to show that acidity is also causing problems in our rivers in some parts of the country.
All I seek is an assurance that such matters are taken into account when the Secretary of State is considering taking action under Clause 108(1). I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, that neither of the activities to which he has referred are precluded by this definition.
Coniferous afforestation is in fact a practice to which we had given consideration in this context, as it can certainly give rise to pollution in certain circumstances. In practice we think it is unlikely that the powers will need to be used for these purposes—partly because of the changes to policy on coniferous planting in upland areas introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Forestry Commission last year, and partly because of the guidance on avoidance of water pollution already provided by the Forestry Commission. But the powers are available for use if necessary.
It is more difficult to identify the activities within abandoned mines—short of bringing them back into use, in which case they may cease to be "abandoned"—which would both cause pollution and be susceptible to controls. Nevertheless, the powers are wide and flexible, and the Government recognise that abandoned mines can remain a source of pollution. Anything done in relation to them which is likely to cause, or exacerbate, pollution could therefore be open to control through these powers. I am sure that that is a possibility which the NRA will keep in mind. It is in those circumstances that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am reassured by that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 367B.
Page 116, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) provide (subject to any regulations under subsection (4) below) for anything failing to be determined under the order by the Authority to be determined in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons as may be specified in the order;").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment related to the powers of the Secretary of State in making, and Parliament in confirming,
214
orders for the establishment of protection zones. Clause 108(2)(a) provides that the NRA may be given discretion in the order establishing the zone as to the activities which are to be restricted and the circumstances in which the restriction is to apply. The amendment will allow the order to impose requirements as to the way in which that discretion is exercised.
Clause 108 provides for substantial and wide-ranging powers to be conferred on the authority, and it is surely right that the Bill should enable requirements to be laid clown as to how these powers are to be exercised. I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 367C:
Page 116, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Any area designated as a 'water protection zone' under this section shall be designated as an 'environmentally sensitive area' under the Agriculture Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to give powers of a permissive nature which will require an agreement to be reached between farmers and the authorities to set up environmentally sensitive areas under the Agriculture Act 1986. That can be done only if the farmer agrees. It will enable there to be greater co-operation in the way the farm is run after the farmer has given his agreement. Bearing in mind the fact that compensation will be available under the ESA procedures, I suggest that the amendment is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to provide that protection zones be designated as environmentally sensitive areas.
That cannot be right. The objective of designating a water protection zone is to prevent the pollution of controlled waters which may or may not involve pollution from agricultural sources which could be controlled by restrictions or prohibitions on agricultural activity. By contrast the purpose of ESA designation is to secure the protection and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and historic interest of an area where that can be achieved by the adoption or maintenance of specific agricultural measures. The criteria for designation are based on the existence of areas of sufficient environmental quality which are threatened by agricultural change and which can be protected and enhanced by the adoption of agricultural measures.
The objectives and criteria for designation of the two zones are therefore different and not likely to be co-terminous. In particular, most WPZs involving agricultural restriction are in intensively farmed areas of insufficient environmental quality to merit ESA designation.
A further consideration is that the arrangements that flow from designation are markedly contrasting. In one case it is legal prohibitions and in another it is voluntary agreements. Clause 108 could not therefore be reconciled with Section 18 of the Agriculture Act, which enables the Minister to control agricultural activity within an area by entering into agreement with individual farmers who

215
agree to manage land in a prescribed way in return for payment. It does not create any free-standing obligations on farmers in an area. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the Minister has said, I see that the two measures are not necessarily compatible, although the greater enhancement of the environment was the objective behind the amendment. It is an objective that should not be ignored. I accept that the amendment is inappropriate, and thus I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 368 and 369 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) moved Amendment No. 369A:
Page 117, line 18, at end insert—
("5) The reference in subsection (1) above to the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into controlled waters shall not include a reference to the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of, or of anything done in connecton with, the use of any land for agricultural purposes.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 369B, 371C, 390E, 391A and 441 A.
The main purpose of this new clause and schedule, and the associated amendments, is to provide powers for the establishment of nitrate sensitive areas in England and Wales in which the Government would introduce controls over agricultural activity in order to reduce the amount of nitrate leaching from agricultural land into water sources. The areas would be jointly designated by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, by means of an order.
Subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause would empower the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Wales to enter into voluntary agreements with farmers in NSAs under which farmers would be required to follow prescribed agricultural practices in return for a payment. Where the agreement is with someone other than the landlord, the landlords's consent would be required. The agreement would be binding on successors in title.
Subsections (4) and (5) would empower the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales to introduce compulsory restrictions on agricultural practices in NSAs, for which payments may be made. Powers are also available for the Minister and Secretary of State to determine the circumstances in which compulsory restrictions would or would not apply within an NSA. The normal provisions for breach of those restrictions are also set down.
The remainder of the clause specifies how ministerial responsibilities would be distributed between the Minister of Agriculture, and the Secretary of States for Environment and for Wales,
216
and also provides for consent procedures to be operated which would enable farmers to carry out work generally prohibited in an area with the consent of the Minister or Secretary of State.
Subsection (7), taken together with Part I of the new schedule, provides that NSA orders may only be made when the NRA has notified the appropriate Ministers that nitrate levels in water sources are in excess, or likely to be so, of acceptable limits and that any provisions already in place are not achieving the desired reduction in nitrate leaching.
Part II of the new schedule sets down the procedures to be followed for the publication and notification of draft orders for compulsory restrictions—whether or not payments are to be made—and provides for a public inquiry to be held at the discretion of Ministers if objections to the proposal are received.
The amendments associated with the new clause and schedule are minor technical amendments which have the effect, first, of taking the control of agricultural activity giving rise to nitrate pollution outside the general provisions fort water protection zones; and, secondly, providing consistency between the two clauses. For example, Amendments Nos. 390E and 391A provide for the Minister and Secretary of State jointly to direct the NRA in relation to NSAs. Such directions might include criteria for the selection of NSAs.
Finally, an amendment to Schedule 24 includes an amendment to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. That would ensure that a tenant could not be open to the charge that he or she had breached the tenancy requirement to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry by complying with the requirements of an NSA scheme. We considered it appropriate to introduce this amendment because it is possible that agreements could last for a considerable time and there is therefore more scope than under other agricultural schemes for a change of landlord during the life of the agreement. The amendment would ensure that, having secured the agreement of the first landlord to entering the scheme, the tenant would continue to be protected for the life of the agreement. It would also afford protection to tenants if a compulsory scheme had to be introduced.
In summary, I hope the Committee will agree this new clause, schedule and series of amendments, which give the powers necessary to give effect to the Government's commitment to introduce controls over agricultural activity in order to help tackle the problem of high nitrate levels in water sources. In particular, provision is made for the use of voluntary as well as compulsory measures. Initially the intention is to use voluntary measures, retaining the compulsory powers as a fallback.
Also, in accordance with our views that farmers should be compensated where restrictions are substantial and go beyond good agricultural practice, there is provision for payments to be made. In the case of compulsory restrictions farmers will also have an opportunity to object to or comment on draft proposals which might give rise to a public inquiry.
The Committee will appreciate that on the important question of nitrates in water the Department of the Environment and of the Ministry of Agriculture will be working jointly to achieve the desired objectives. Allow me to say that, if the amendments are accepted, the Government's intention is to establish a sample of pilot NSAs covering a range of different circumstances in which the effectiveness of various agricultural measures can be tested. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 369B:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause:
("Nitrate sensitive areas.
(1) Where the relevant Minister considers that it is appropriate to do so with a view to achieving the following purpose, that is to say, preventing or controlling the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of, or of anything done in connection with, the use of any land for agricultural purposes, he may by order make provision designating that land, together with any other land to which he considers it appropriate to apply the designation, as a nitrate sensitive area.
(2) Where any area has been designated as a nitrate sensitive area by an order under this section and the relevant Minister considers that it is appropriate to do so with a view to achieving the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, he may, subject to such restrictions (if any) as may be set out in the order, enter into an agreement under which, in consideration of payments to be made by the relevant Minister—

(a) the owner of the freehold interest in any agricultural land in that area; or

(b) where the owner of the freehold interest in any such land has given his written consent to the agreement being entered into by any person having another interest in that land, that other person,

accepts such obligations with respect to the Management of that land or otherwise as may be imposed by the agreement.
(3) An agreement such as is mentioned in subsection (2) above between the relevant Minister and a person having an interest in any land shall bind all persons deriving title from or under that person to the extent that the agreement is expressed to bind that land in relation to those persons.
(4) Where it appears to the relevant Minister in relation to any area which is or is to be designated by an order under this section as a nitrate sensitive area that it is appropriate for provision for the imposition of requirements, prohibitions or restrictions to be contained in an order under this section (as well as for him to be able to enter into such agreements as are mentioned in subsection (2) above), he may, by a subsequent order under this section or, as the case may be, by the order designating that area—

(a) with a view to achieving the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, require, prohibit or restrict the carrying on or in relation to any agricultural land in that area of such activities as may be specified or described in the order; and

(b) provide for such amounts (if any) as may be specified in or determined under the order to be paid by the Minister or the Secretary of State, to such persons as may be so specified or determined, in respect of the obligations imposed in relation to that area on those persons by virtue of paragraph (a) above.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, provision contained in an order under this section by virtue of that subsection may—

(a) confer power on the Minister or the Secretary of State to determine for the purposes of the order the circumstances in which the carrying on of any activities is required, prohibited or restricted and to determine the activities to
218
which any such requirement, prohibition or restriction applies;

(b) provide for any requirement to carry on any activity not to apply in cases where the Minister or the Secretary of State has consented to a failure to carry on that activity and any conditions on which the consent has been given are complied with;

(c) apply a prohibition or restriction in respect of any activities to cases where the activities are carried on without the consent of the Minister or the Secretary of State or in contravention of any conditions subject to which any such consent is given;

(d) provide that a contravention of a requirement, prohibition or restriction contained in the order or in a condition of a consent given in relation to or for the purposes of any such requirement, prohibition or restriction shall be an offence the maximum penalties for which shall not exceed the penalties specified in subsection (5) of section 14 above;

(e) provide for amounts paid in pursuance of any provision contained in the order to be repaid at such times and in such circumstances, and with such interest, as may be specified in or determined under the order; and

(f) provide (subject to any regulations under subsection (8) below) for anything falling to be determined under the order by any person to be determined in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons as may be specified in the order.

(6) An order under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

(b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the relevant Minister considers appropriate.

(7) The power of the relevant Minister to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; but the relevant Minister shall not make such an order except in accordance with any applicable provisions of Schedule (Orders designating Nitrate Sensitive Areas) to this Act.
(8) The Secretary of State and the Minister, acting jointly, may, for the purposes of any orders under this section which require the consent of either of those Ministers to the carrying on of any activities or to any failure to carry on any activity, by regulations make provision with respect: to—

(a) applications for any such consent;

(b) the conditions of any such consent;

(c) the revocation or variation of any such consent;

(d) the reference to arbitration of disputes about determinations on any such application;

(e) the imposition of charges where such an application has been made, such a consent has been given or there has been any act or omission in pursuance of any such consent; and

(f) the registration of any such application or consent.

(9) In this section and in Schedule (Orders designating Nitrate Sensitive Areas) to this Act "the relevant Minister"—
(a) in relation—

(i) to the making of an order in relation to an area which is wholly in Wales; or

(ii) to an agreement with respect to land which is wholly in Wales,

means the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to the making of an order in relation to an area which is wholly in England or which is partly in England and partly in Wales, means the Minister and the Secretary of State, acting jointly;
(c) in relation to an agreement with respect to land which is wholly in England, means the Minister; and
(d) in relation to an agreement with respect to land which is partly in England and partly in Wales, means the Secretary of State or the Minister.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 369B, Amendment No. 369C:
In the proposed subsection (4), line 9, leave out ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: Before addressing my remarks to this particular set of amendments—that is, 369C to 369E—I should like to make a few general points. The first is to thank my noble friend for explaining the scheme as described in government Amendment No. 369B and in the schedule.
The first and vital point is that, although I support the efforts of the Government in getting the scheme off the ground, the Committee and the public at large must be made aware that, if the current proposals of the European Commission are accepted in full and this scheme is enforced to its extreme, a very substantial part of the United Kingdom could be made to grow grass only and just cut it. That is why I believe that it is the Committee's duty to discuss Amendment No. 369B and my amendments to it.
I am very pleased that Sub-Committee D is about to publish a report on nitrates. I hope that my noble friend Lord Middleton will speak on his views. It is a pity that we have reached this amendment before the sub-comittee has reported, but that is a fact of life.
With that background of most of the United Kingdom being obliged by law to grow grass for cutting only—no allotments, no gardens, no golf courses—I ask my probing questions. I put them in no particular order of priority; it is as they came into my head.
First, I am concerned about the possible effect that voluntary, not compulsory, participation in an NSA could have on the landlord-tenant relationship. I wonder whether my noble friend could say whether voluntary as well as compulsory participation in a nitrate-sensitive area will be a factor that will be taken into account by the arbitrator in a rent negotiation. I wonder also whether my noble friend could state whether such participation will be inherited by a succeeding tenant. That has been suggested, rightly or wrongly, in the farming press.
Secondly, I should like to know for what scientific reason the EC chose the figure of 50mg per litre as the safe limit, and whether the figure will be arrived at in the various areas by a series of tests at different times, or whether, as I suspect the EC are trying to say, it will be sufficient for just one test to activate an NSA.
Thirdly, I should like to ask my noble friend to give the Government's view on the effectiveness of having NSAs to control the level of nitrates in our aquifers. Might there be a case for using other methods rather than using an NSA, which might be ineffective, particularly if the level of nitrates in a particular aquifer was already extremely high? Bearing in mind that in East Anglia 40kg of nitrate per hectare fall from the heavens and it is necessary to get down to 20kg to get below the 50mg per litre limit, it sounds as though we have a problem.
Fourthly, my noble friend's amendment speaks of "any other land". Could this include gardens, allotments and golf clubs? I understand that on the
220
Continent the highest level of nitrate in water is to be found in towns or just round the edges of towns. Can gardeners, allotment holders and, indeed, golf courses, which also use nitrogen, be told to limit their nitrogen use? Of course, that includes farmyard manure and compost, which is exactly the same.
Fifthly and lastly, can my noble friend give me a definition of "good agricultural practice"? As she will realise, that vitally affects the compensation provisions. Does it mean a practice that produces maximum profitability?
Those are my general queries. Subject to the Committee's wishes, it might be helpful if I now formally move my Amendment No. 369C so that other noble Lords and my noble friend on the Front Bench may comment on the general points before I deal in detail with my amendments to my noble friend's amendment. If that is the Committee's wish, and I think it is the right way to do it, I now formally move Amendment No. 369C.
Lord Middleton: My noble friend Lord Stanley has raised some extremely interesting and technical questions in moving his amendment. It might be appropriate now if I speak to the Government's amendments—that is, Amendments Nos. 369B and 371C.
The powers given to the relevant Minister to make orders under this new clause which is set up under Amendment No. 369B arise from obligations imposed on the Government by European directives. Because those directives raise matters of importance to this country concerning public health and environmental matters, and because the water quality standards set by the Commission directly affect our water industry and agriculture, the House of Lords Select Committee decided to inquire in depth into the nitrate problem.
Sub-committee D, which I have the great privilege of chairing, was given the job and we have been taking evidence for the last six weeks. I have no doubt that when our report is laid before this House there will be the opportunity for a debate. I certainly do not wish to open up the subject now, except to say that if anybody thinks that the problem of nitrates in water is a simple one and that the solutions are easy to prescribe and to operate, he is under a delusion.
To start with, you have to look at the medical evidence to see just what danger to health is posed by nitrates in water. Fortunately in this country the danger is not very great, but my view is that the Community and this Government are right to take it seriously. The European Commission's limit of 50 milligrammes per litre of nitrate concentration in water is, according to the evidence that we have had, playing safe by a generous margin. My committee is taking steps to obtain the best scientific evidence available. Whether the Commission did that is to be examined. The deeper we delve, the greater the complexity.
There are other sources of nitrates, but from evidence that we have so far received it is broadly true to say, as does the Ministry of Agriculture's consultation paper, that the principal source of nitrate in water is nitrate leached from farmland as

221
a result of agricultural activity. Hence this new clause which gives the Government power to create nitrate sensitive areas within which agricultural activity may be restricted.
The Water Research Council has told us that in areas where aquafers are extensive—and my noble friend Lord Stanley referred to this—such as East Anglia, the vulnerable zones could cover very large areas indeed. The Water Research Council says that the effectiveness of the measures proposed is not without question. In terms of drinking water, the use of fertilisers and the spreading of manure may not be key elements in nitrate leaching, although they are undoubtedly contributory factors.
So it is quite obvious at this stage of our inquiry, because of the complex issues involved and the need for more research, that—this is my opinion—the Government are right to take a gradual approach and not to rush in with ill thought out measures. To put an immediate ban on chemical fertilisers containing nitrates, and to restrict livestock on huge tracts of our most productive farming country, runs the risk of endangering the nation's food supplies without necessarily reducing the health risk.
To illustrate some of the problems, most of the nitrates in the soil are derived not directly from fertilisers, most of which are taken up by the plants, but by the breaking down of organic matter such as ploughed-in grassland, and the rate of leaching of nitrate is infinitely variable according to the underlying geology and to the climate. In deep chalk formation, nitrate may take 40 years to reach the ground water. The delineation of sensitive zones will not be all that straightforward. A professor, who is also a civil engineer, was quoted to us as saying that in some cases you could not be sure within 50 kilometres where nitrates in water had actually been derived from at the surface.
There are more ways than one of treating water to remove nitrates, such as the blending of supplies or using denitrification units. In some areas these, or a combination of these, would be more cost-effective than restricting agricultural activities. In other areas agricultural restrictions would be better. In no case would it be cheap.
On the cost of water treatment alone—this has nothing to do with the cost of paying farmers; it is just the treatment of water—an estimate made for the DoE indicated that compliance with a limit of 50 milligrammes per litre would require immediate capital expenditure of £50 million and a further £150 million within 20 years. This is just to deal with nitrates. We shall be taking evidence from the Water Authorities Association tomorrow and I believe that these figures may be revised upwards. So it is vital to protect the purity of our water supplies, but we should make progress treating simple and perhaps popular prescriptions with caution. That, I believe, is the intention of the Government.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps I may comment first on the new clause of my noble friend Lady Trumpington and, secondly, on the amendments to
222
that new clause of my noble friend Lord Stanley, since he has formally moved them. I shall be quite brief. I have no questions to ask, but I should like to make a few general comments on the clause.
The whole of this question has to be seen in the context of the EC directive and the drama that it could cause among the farmers of this country, to the farmland and to the farm workers. It could—I say that advisedly—ripple on and cause all sorts of trouble so far as importing food and the balance of payments are concerned. It would be very difficult indeed for everyone.
When I speak about a drama, I mean it. In a farmer's life it would be dramatic. If someone was farming on, say, Humberside, which has beautiful rich arable land and is probably one of the spots where nitrate leaching would cause trouble, you would not want to be told after working in one way for a very long time that you had to do something totally different.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for bringing this clause forward. Perhaps she noticed that I withdrew my own few words on nitrates and compensation. Her schedule and clause are about three-and-a-half pages long. Although I realise that my amendment was not quite as it should be, I dealt with the situation by altering one word and adding four to the Bill. But I feel that somehow we must weight this clause more in favour of the farmer. Matters such as compensation are so dramatic and—to come on to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley—they cannot be allowed to be permissive. The poor farmer who might be threatened must know that he will be compensated.
It has been admitted in the nitrate consultative document that the polluter pays principle just does not apply here. We are dealing with a situation that started before most people were fanning and they can hardly be blamed for it. They will be told that perhaps they must alter their life style and that they may be compensated. I do not think that is good enough. Following on from that, there must be proper recourse to the Lands Tribunal in case—
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Will my noble friend give way for a minute? I shall move that amendment in one second, plus all the others, and it might be easier if we just stick to the main point.
The Earl of Radnor: I apologise for treading on my noble friend's toes. I thought that he had formally moved the amendment. I do not want in any way to pre-empt what he might say. Perhaps I may finish by saying that at least this clause must be weighted more towards the farmer and away from regulations made in Europe which many people feel are quite unreasonable. I hope that my noble friend at some stage or other will be able somehow to strike a balance. On one side there are the risks to health, which it would seem are very slight indeed. The last known blue baby case was in 1972, and the other example of cancer of the stomach is suspect and very much in doubt indeed. On the other side there is what could be a very awkward situation for farmers and farmland in this country. I hope: that in some

223
way the farmer will be given more hope than he has at the moment within this new clause.
Lord Monk Bretton: I wish to make one point and ask one question about the main amendments moved by my noble friend the Minister. I am quite sure it is right to press on with this pilot scheme because that is the only way in which we shall learn more about this very complex problem. However, I wish to consider the situation that will arise after that scheme. It appears that there is no power for the Minister to charge the costs of these nitrate sensitive areas to the water plcs.
If by any chance the NSAs were very successful, particularly in certain areas, they would absolve plcs from the work of purification or blending that they would otherwise need to resort to. Where that was the case and the designation of land as a nitrate sensitive area was a cheaper remedy, should not the plcs pay something towards the costs? If there is no provision for the plcs to pay something, I have a feeling that they will continually press for nitrate sensitive area designation to save themselves from having to pay for purification and blending.
We should ensure that the plcs are motivated towards the most economic overall solution, rather than simply the most economic solution for them. If setting up NSAs costs them nothing, they may be motivated by that solution. It could be tiresome for the Ministry of Agriculture and for agriculture itself to have the plcs continually on their backs about this matter. We should continue to bear in mind the expensive and bureaucratic nature of NSAs, and also their uncertainty in effect. I do not know how much my noble friend can say about this now. I wish, however, to reserve my position for Report stage.
Lord Walston: I am in great difficulty over these amendments. I believe they are necessary and, on the whole, good. Obviously, however, certain parts of them could be improved. It is no fault of the Government, but it is unfortunate that in this case we are discussing an enormously complex problem with very wide ramifications simply as an amendment to a Bill which deals essentially with water supplies and sewage disposal. This matter embraces a very far-ranging, technical, scientific as well as agricultural and social problem.
I have great sympathy with the point which I believe was made by the previous speaker as regards who is responsible for pollution by nitrates. As I understand it, a great deal of the nitrate pollution stems from actions taken over 40 years ago or more. Any action taken now will not have any immediate effect in certain areas. The ploughing up of grassland during the war released a lot of nitrates which are slowly finding their way into the water supply. That is one of the complexities.
There are also the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred, of urban areas, gardens and, particularly in East Anglia, of rainfall. Those problems have nothing to do with farming practices as such. This scheme of nitrate sensitive areas will have no impact whatever on those problems.
224
Further, there is what one can call the economic problem of how recompense can be worked out for farmers. I agree that if their farming methods are interfered with by legislation or by Government edict they should be compensated. But how can that be worked out? I shall give the Committee an example of that. At the present time, farmers are busily engaged in dairying and grassland areas with making silage. I know of two farms that are adjacent to each other. One of the farms is a farm which the fanner inherited from his father many years ago. That farmer has no mortgage interest to pay and no rent charges of any kind. I shall not say whether that farmer is a good farmer or a bad farmer. He grows beautiful buttercups which look very pretty in among his grass. He applies very little fertiliser and he takes one cut of silage. Nearby is a farmer who has recently acquired his farm and has very heavy mortgage interest charges to pay. He farms in the best way that he was taught at agricultural college with plentiful applications of fertilisers. He already has one cut of silage. He has already applied his second dose of nitrates and will shortly be taking a second cut. He will then apply more nitrates and take his third cut.
That farmer would be very seriously affected by any restrictions on the use of nitrates which may quite rightly be imposed. He would be hurt very much by the restrictions and he would require considerable compensation. In certain cases the landlord would require compensation as the rent would have to be reduced. The first farmer I referred to will not make any changes in his fanning methods. He will require no compensation of any kind as he will continue in his old comfortable ways and farm moderately profitably.
That is simply one example of the kind of difficulties which will arise. We cannot discuss these in any detail when we are dealing with a Water Bill, but they must be discussed before we come to any final conclusion about what kind of control should be exercised over agricultural land which is contaminating the water supply. We should discuss what kind of control should be exercised and what kind of help will be given to the farmers and to the landowners who will be affected by this kind of provision, and how the whole thing is to be administered in an equitable and efficient manner.
I simply wish to bring out into the open just some of the problems which this whole attack on nitrates will create, and which it is already beginning to create. I accept that some form of amendment to this Bill is necessary in order to make it possible for the Government to control the noxious effluents which stem from the kind of farming we are used to today. One must admit however that we have been used to it for very many years.
Baroness Trumpington: We have rambled a little. However, now I shall return to answering Amendments Nos. 369C, 369D and 369E. Those amendments are interrelated and would affect the compensation arrangements for a nitrate sensitive——
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I have not spoken to those amendments. I thought we came to an agreement that the Minister would answer the general questions before I moved those three amendments. I have not moved them yet.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall answer the general questions as asked by various Members of the Committee. I believe the first question that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked me concerned participation in the NSA scheme affecting the rent of a holding. I must be forgiven because we have strayed a little during the course of this mini-debate.
Only the courts can give an authoritative interpretation of the legislation. However, at a rent arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 an arbitrator must take account of all relevant factors and certain specific ones. In our view the relevant factors would include the fact that the tenant had entered the scheme, and the restrictions, which he had therefore accepted and the payment for income forgone which he was receiving under the scheme.
The noble Lord asked whether a new tenant would be bound by his predecessor's decision. The answer is, no. An agreement to participate in voluntary measures under an NSA scheme would bind all persons deriving title from or under the person entering the scheme. A new tenant would not be bound because he would have derived his title from the landlord rather than from the outgoing tenant.
My noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Stanley of Alderley spoke about the Government basing nitrate policy on the 50 mg per litre limit. The government policy is based on that limit in the drinking water directive because that is the maximum limit which, on both legal and medical advice, I am told we must aim to meet. The Commission proposal for an EC nitrate directive is still at a very early stage of consideration in Brussels. The Government have already made it clear, however, that any policy must take account of natural seasonal fluctuations in nitrate levels in rivers. We should be opposed to designating such catchment areas where the surface water exceeds 50 mg per litre only temporarily in the autumn but where nitrate levels are on average through the year below that figure.
The Government also believe that the 50 mg per litre nitrate limit in the drinking water directive should be met by agricultural restrictions, or by water blending or purification, or by a mixture of measures depending on what is most effective in local circumstances.
How can the Government be sure, scientifically, that the measures they will adopt in the pilot NSAs will work? The measures taken in the pilot areas will be based on the best scientific advice available at the time. We realise that the understanding of nitrate leaching is incomplete, and that is one of the reasons for proceeding initially with pilot schemes. The result of the schemes will be monitored carefully, mainly by taking samples of the water leaching from the surface using lysimeters or porous cups and by analysing their nitrate content.
226
Both my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke about the restrictions also applying to other polluters—golf courses, allotments etc. I cannot say in advance whether measures applied to farmers will apply to others because that will depend on, among other things, whether other polluters are making a significant or major contribution to the problem. However, the Government are taking powers to control other polluters in water protection zones through Clause 108 of this Water Bill. Clearly the aim will be to adopt a policy that is fair to all concerned.
In general, good agricultural practice is the practice one should reasonably expect farmers to adopt, given the need both for a viable and profitable enterprise and for the avoidance of pollution. It will not, however, be easy to define good agricultural practice in detail, and that is one of the points on which the Government are currently seeking the views of interested parties in our consultation document on the nitrate sensitive areas scheme.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton asked me about power to charge NSA charges to water plcs. There will be no such power because it would not be right to compel water plcs and consumers to finance compensation to farmers.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton for his words. These are new schemes which inevitably contain an element of experimentation. We are therefore proceeding cautiously, but I hope the Committee will agree that it is a start, and a good one, in very difficult circumstances.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sure that I shall be out of order, but first of all I should like to thank my noble friend very much for those very good answers. At least we now know where we are. We may not like the answers, but that is another matter.
Perhaps to be in order, I may now speak to my Amendment No. 369C and also to Amendments Nos. 369D and 369E, which go together. This will not take very long.
Baroness Trumpington: This is a matter for other channels, but what are we going to do about food? I have to answer my noble friend. Perhaps we could continue after dinner.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am perfectly happy to do so, but it is a matter for the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman.
The Earl of Dundee: Perhaps the Committee will agree that we have a break now and return to the Committee stage in an hour's time, at 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that the House do so resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Member for Ynys Mon, deserves much credit for steering this Bill through another place. I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships today.
As I understand it, there are getting on for some 4 million people in this country, including a high proportion of the elderly, who could benefit from the use of a hearing aid. It needs no words of mine to emphasise the sense of loneliness and isolation which deafness can involve. It is to be borne in mind too that hearing aids are not like glasses, which can provide a more or less instant solution. Hearing aids may well need a period of time and experiment before individuals can get used to them to the best advantage.
The Hearing Aid Council Act 1968, which I believe started life as a ten-minute rule Bill, provided for the setting up of a council to secure adequate standards of conduct for those who dispensed hearing aids in the private sector and made it an offence to act as a dispenser unless one was registered with the council. There are now nearly 650 registered dispensers, and some 20 per cent. of all hearing aids dispensed are bought privately.
The great majority of those dispensers operate efficiently and with perfect propriety. However, it is a regrettable fact that some of them give rise to rather too many complaints about, for example, extravagant advertising, high pressure selling, unwanted home visits, over-persistent follow-up and inadequate redress when a hearing aid turns out to be unsatisfactory. Individual cases may well be known to your Lordships. There are certainly some known to me. I have in mind in particular two rather elderly ladies, both of whom live alone and both of whom have spent several hundred pounds on hearing aids which do them no good at all.
Experience has shown that the Hearing Aid Council has insufficient powers to deal with many of those complaints, and it is the purpose of this Bill to put the matter right.
There are four main proposals. First, the council, under powers conferred by the original Act, has drawn up a code of practice which, as the Act requires, has been approved by the Government. But the council has no powers to deal with breaches of that code as such. Under the original Act, its powers are limited to dealing with the consequences of a criminal conviction or with what is judged to be serious misconduct, whereas the code covers a wide range of matters such as advertising, the conditions under which trainees may operate, arrangements for home visits, guarantees, trial periods and so forth. Clause 2 will bring breaches of the code, either as it exists now or as it may be amended in future, within the competence of the council's disciplinary committee.
Secondly, at present the council has at its disposal one sanction only—erasure from the register. It is
228
an extreme power and it is not surprising that it is not often used. I understand that it has been used only once in the last 12 years, and only seven times in the 21 years of the council's existence. Clause 3 makes provision for a wider range of penalties, adding to the power of erasure the power to impose admonition, a monetary penalty or temporary suspension.
Thirdly, Clause 4 empowers the disciplinary committee to order any party to proceedings before it to pay the costs in whole or in part. I think that that provision should be especially useful. Disciplinary hearings have been few in number, but they have tended to be very legalistic, and therefore very expensive, and have taken up a considerable proportion of the council's expenditure.
Fourthly, and finally, the Bill alters the composition of the council. At present, it consists of six representatives of the trade and five consumers and medical or technical experts with a chairman who has only a casting vote. Clause 5 proposes that, in addition to the chairman, there should in future be a membership of 12—four from the trade, four consumers and four medical or technical experts.
I am conscious of two aspects that have given rise to some concern. The first is that the monetary penalty of £1,000 which the disciplinary committee can impose under Clause 3(2) seems to be on the small side. But it can hardly be more than the fine that can be imposed on the unregistered operator. Clause 1 puts that also at £1,000. I believe that the figure is not wildly out of line with that for other professions, but the Minister may have a word to say on that topic.
The other point is that some members of the trade have expressed the fear that the new composition of the council would mean that, in practice, it would be over-weighted in favour of the consumer; but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be alive to the need to secure an adequate representation of impartial and independent members.
This Bill has received wide support. I have received quite a number of notices from noble Lords who would like to support the Bill even though they cannot be here in person this evening. The council will celebrate its 21st birthday later this year. The promise of a new set of powers to make it more effective would be a welcome birthday present. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
7.44 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am delighted to pledge the support of my noble friends on these Benches to the noble Lord and his Bill. Perhaps I should refer to my noble friends who would be on these Benches should the need arise. I am particularly delighted that this Bill, which started life as a Private Member's Bill in another place, should have found so expert and efficient a pilot as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I believe that the Bill could not be in safer or more expert hands for its later conduct and I am glad about that.

229
I have a special interest in this Bill because I was the second sponsor of the original Bill which, as the noble Lord rightly said, started as a ten-minute rule Bill introduced by Mr. Laurie Pavitt, MP. I took a great interest in the original Bill and have taken a great interest in the working of the Act ever since.
I should make it quite clear that I believe that, had the provision under the National Health Service—the old hearing aid clinics or audiology clinics; they changed their name at various times—been wholly adequate, the need for recourse to the private sector would have been very much less than it is. The noble Lord who is to reply will remember that there have been many arguments over the years and many times when the number of different hearing aids which were available was varied. There were campaigns with regard to the old hearing aid which was worn on clothing, made a noise and was totally unsuitable for nursing mothers and others. Gradually, there were changes in the National Health Service provision. I should like to say without hesitation that, in many ways and for many people, the National Health Service has wholly effectively provided hearing aids which have been entirely satisfactory for the people who have made use of them.
However, the fact remains that the National Health Service has always lagged behind and has not been at the forefront in accepting the effects of new technology and in making readily and freely available to a wide spectrum of the population the most modern and acceptable hearing aids as they come on to the market. That has in part been the reason why so many people have had recourse to the private sector. Let me say at once that many of the private dispensers—the private hearing aid firms—do admirable work of a high professional quality. I should not like that point to be forgotten. Many of them are very good indeed.
However, the fact also remains that some of those companies are not quite so good. In some cases, their professional standards are not as good as one hopes. That was the main reason why a hearing aid council became necessary. It kept a watchful eye on what was going on and, from time to time, it took action. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, reminded the House, the disciplinary committee has met only five times since 1966 and, in those 12 years, it has struck off only one dispenser. However, it had great influence because merely striking people off is not the only remedy; its very existence, and the way in which it worked among the profession that provides hearing aids privately, improved professional standards vastly. Some of those standards are very high indeed.
Unfortunately, however, standards are sometimes not as high as they should be. I recently had reason to advise some hearing aid companies close to my own home of other legislation. There is the Department of Trade and Industry's booklet Selling Away From Business Premises—A Trader's Guide to the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987. To my certain knowledge, many of those firms were in clear breach of those regulations and did not even know of the existence
230
of the booklet until I passed it to them. There is the caveat emptor principle: but what about the seller? Not only do those regulations confer rights on the purchaser; they confer clear obligations on the seller who has a legal obligation to give written notice of the purchaser's rights when he or she buys goods away from trade premises. Failure to do so is an offence. I think that it came as a bolt from the blue for some of those firms to be made aware of that provision.
However, we are not talking about those regulations; we are talking about other means of supervising what happens. In some cases there is cold calling and doorstep selling. Salesmen, possibly from reputable firms and, quite likely, with good products, call and persuade elderly people that the hearing aid that they can provide is much better than the NHS one that the elderly person possesses. Consequently, there is a great deal of waste and duplication. In my experience in general medical practice, when old people die one finds that they have four or five hearing aids—three National Health Service aids and perhaps two other hearing aids which they have purchased privately, often at great expense. Very often the problem had been that they had never learnt how to use any of those hearing aids properly. They had often been persuaded to buy one which they did not need. That is a practice which we must look at very carefully.
When my mother-in-law died last year at the age of 94 she left behind her four hearing aids, two of which came from the National Health Service and two from private companies. She used none of them properly; rarely in fact did she use any of them. Nonetheless the fact remains that she was very open to being influenced and when someone suggested that she would do much better with one of the private aids which would be totally invisible and which no one would notice, she bought one. She did not need it. We must look carefully at that kind of situation.
I am not talking about professional misconduct. Many hearing aid firms do very good work indeed and some of their audiologists carry out careful examinations of the patients who come to them and make sure that the appliance which they prescribe for that patient is wholly suitable for him. That is fine, except that sometimes they are very expensive and occasionally the patient could have done just as well with a National Health Service hearing aid had he or she bothered to obtain one.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for explaining so clearly the purposes of the Bill. In my eyes it has three main purposes. First, it amends the composition of the council so as to achieve a better balance between representatives of the trade and representatives of the consumer, with an independent element, as the noble Lord explained. Secondly, it widens the range of complaints that the council can investigate, and that is important. Thirdly, it widens the range of sanctions that are available to the council to deal with trade malpractice.
I believe that the original Bill was a success and that the existence of the Hearing Aid Council did a great deal to improve professional standards and much to protect many elderly and particularly

231
vulnerable people. The deaf and hard of hearing are vulnerable and the council did a great deal to protect them. But time and experience have shown that more needs to be done. I believe that whatever individual and minor defects this Bill may have—and surely they can be remedied at a later stage—it is a very important step toward that end.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I rise to intervene in this debate but I should first declare an interest. I am becoming increasingly deaf and therefore dependent on hearing aids. That has led me to pay some attention to this Bill which I might not otherwise have done. I support the objectives of the Bill, which has been so clearly and sympathetically introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
I have only one comment to make on it. As the two previous speakers said, the composition of the council has been altered, on what I think is a proposal of the Government, to provide for the increased representation of consumers and technical members, and the industry representation has been reduced. The industry has hitherto provided all the finance for the council and no doubt was ready to do so in view of its strong position on the council; namely, six members out of 12. Now that its representation has been reduced to four out of 13 members, it is still required to foot the entire bill and prima facie that seems inequitable.
When that point was raised during the debates in another place the Government's response was that the industry would indirectly recoup part of the expenditure because any fines levied under the Bill would be paid to the council and that, in large measure, would offset any costs that might be incurred, including any further expenses foreseen as a result of additional proceedings taken in view of the widened provisions of the Bill. The industry would therefore be partially compensated, even if its representatives were unhappy about the decisions of the council.
I may be a little naive, but this seems to be an extraordinary basis on which to finance anything. It is uncertain, unquantifiable in advance and, I should have thought, rather undesirable. I know from experience in other fields that the Government endeavour to make industry foot the bill whenever an opportunity presents itself, even though the purpose is for the public good, as it seems to be in large measure in this case. I hope that the Minister can give a rather better, more convincing and, dare I say, more respectable justification for their position on this Bill than was given in another place.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, like other noble Lords I warmly welcome the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who has done so much over many years for disabled people. I also congratulate Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones who introduced the Bill in another place. As has been said, it is an important Bill. It is strongly supported by the Royal National Institute
232
for the Deaf as well as by MPs and Peers from all parties, deaf and consumer organisations, organisations for the elderly and parts of the private sector, because it will offer greater consumer protection to a largely elderly group of people who are hard of hearing. I think that the Bill is well thought out and I support it in every respect.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is an interesting one. I too shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say, because on that basis it would be more realistic for the Government to foot the Bill when it is for a task that they want to be done. Clearly they will support the Bill because if such a change is made they have to pay nothing. It costs nothing and therefore it can be supported. However, this approach to the problems of the deaf is not adequate. Even this modest Bill can only reach the statute book, as did the original Act, by dint of a Private Member's Bill. Frankly that has been the case for most advances in provision for disabled people for many years.
More serious is the failure to tackle the real problem, which requires resources. That is why I touched upon this issue in what was almost my first sentence. I should like to congratulate the Royal National Institute for the Deaf which has produced a very good study entitled Hearing Aids—The Case for Change. It develops a thorough technique of evaluating present hearing aid services and argues the case for a reorganised system and of course for more resources to be made available. As this report points out, there is much wrong with the system. The present hearing aid services are failing to satisfy many chronic needs. Consumers are not receiving the services that they should receive. There are long waiting lists. The average waiting time for an ENT appointment is 16 weeks and it can take up to two years before one receives an appointment. I have been waiting for 14 weeks so far and I wonder how much longer I shall have to wait. I should like to shorten the time if I can and I may write a letter about it. This is a disturbing situation and it can take a further 14 weeks before a consumer is finally fitted with a hearing aid.
There is also a staffing crisis in the National Health Service. In some parts of the country hearing aid services have virtually collapsed because of such shortages and the problems of recruiting new audiology technicians. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its disability survey identified about a quarter of a million adults who had hearing loss and who were living in communal establishments. Almost without exception hospital departments cannot offer services to those consumers. The RNID also believes that the service is ineffective. As has been said, after receiving a hearing aid, 20 per cent. of consumers do not in fact use it. Studies and pilot projects have confirmed that the use and benefit of hearing aids can be maximised by good advice given on fitting and follow-up visits to deal with any problems that arise; but that cannot always be done by a hospital-based service which is sometimes under strain.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to intervene for a moment. In

233
the main he has been speaking of the hospital service and hospital waiting lists which are dealt with through ENT clinics. Is it not right that in some areas the general practitioner can refer a patient direct to a hearing aid centre? In other areas, the rules are that they must be referred through the ENT clinic. That position is surely not satisfactory. It would be better if they could all be referred direct by the general practitioner.
Lord Ennals: I very much agree. I recognise the strength of the argument, and the problem. Such referral might solve part of the waiting list problem.
I am glad that the Minister who speaks for health is present because these are issues that need to be considered by the Department of Health. There is a certain anomaly about this Bill not being a health Bill. That point was made in another place when the Bill was debated. As we have heard any consumer who buys an aid privately from a dispenser who visits his home is subject to high pressure sales methods. That is undesirable for elderly people.
I have briefly summarised only parts of this document. We have here some very piercing criticisms and positive proposals about how the hearing aid service should be developed. This is a matter to which we should give our attention. I hope that the Minister will do so.
One of the sponsors of the Bill in another place, Miss Emma Nicholson, was very critical of the role of the National Health Service. At col. 1211 of the Official Report in another place on 28th April she said:
"The National Health Service is still in the age of the dinosaur".
I do not know what she meant by "still". It was not in the age of the dinosaur in my time. It has just become a dinosaur in the last decade. She continued:
"National Health Service dispensers are gravely let down by the paucity of technological development in the hearing aids that they provide. . . . Technical change continues and it outstrips the NHS".
The role of the Hearing Aid Council would be less important if a decent service were provided for NHS patients, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
In a debate in another place on 23rd March, at col 1303 of the Official Report, the Minister, Mr. Forth, was quoted as saying:
"In the coming months we must work on a sensible set of reforms, which commend themselves to all those who work in the Health Service and, above all, to meet patient needs".
That was said in a debate which had followed many of the recommendations in the report of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. I do not know whether the Minister can say, having had a word with his friend, whether there is any progress on this review. Is the Department considering it with great care? I certainly agree with a point made in a letter to The Times by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on 16th February. He was talking about unscrupulous high pressure salesmen. He said that he had no objection to companies making profits on something that is not needed—luxuries for able-bodied people—but when it is cashing in on people with disabilities, that is another matter. I take that same view myself.
234
While I absolutely support the Bill as it is presented to the House, and wish to see it achieve rapid progress, I hope that the Department of Health, which has the real responsibility, does not think that it has now solved the problem, because it has not. I hope that we can have an assurance that the recommendations that have been made by the experts—the Royal National Institute for the Deaf—will be very carefully considered. I hope that a Statement will be made which can be debated in both Houses, so that we may eventually undertake some action. I do not wish to underestimate the importance of this Bill but we need to do far more. I hope that we shall hear something about that from the Minister when he replies.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have the honour to speak for the Government in support of this Private Member's Bill. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing the Bill to this House so clearly and concisely, and all other noble Lords who took part in the debate for bringing so much expertise to it. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, brings a great deal of expertise to this debate, having been a Minister of State for Health in the last Labour Government. It is a great pleasure to listen to him. However, I think that he will admit that he raised some issues that were not directly related to this Bill. He will therefore not be surprised if I do not answer all his comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, reminded us that the Bill would not be before us today without the efforts of Mr. Laurie Pavitt who introduced the setting up of the Hearing Aid Council in 1968.I was not aware of the noble Lord's interest in the subject. Yet again, we have another expert with whom I have to deal.
The main purpose of the Bill before your Lordships today is to strengthen and improve the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. The Government support this endeavour and will strive to ensure that the amendment Act is the best possible for all concerned. The private hearing aid industry stands to benefit from greater public confidence in the council's ability to ensure the highest standards of conduct and competence among private dispensers. The hearing impaired stand to gain from improved levels of protection which this Bill seeks to introduce.
It is only right to point out that since the Act was passed in 1968, standards of competence and conduct in the dispensing of private hearing aids have greatly improved. But, two years later, we should be and are looking at a Bill to amend the Act in order to reflect current views and concerns.
Perhaps I may first remind your Lordships of the provisions of the current Hearing Aid Council Act and of the functions of the Hearing Aid Council. It is an independent statutory body which finances itself entirely out of revenue from registration, retention and examination fees. The council has the general function of securing adequate standards of competence and conduct among private hearing aid dispensers. The Act requires all dispensers and employers of dispensers of hearing aids in the private sector to be registered with the council.

235
Some people have expressed surprise that the council is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It has been the responsibility of the Board of Trade and its successors since the Act was passed in 1968 because the Act is concerned with consumer controls and the regulation of trade practices which are essentially trade matters.
The major change to the present Act proposed in this Bill concerns the composition of the Hearing Aid Council. It had become increasingly clear over recent months that the existing composition of six representatives of dispensers and five representatives of the hearing impaired or those with specialised medical and/or audiological technical knowledge plus an independent chairman, no longer had the confidence of the hearing impaired public. The sponsor of the Bill proposed a council consisting of six representatives of dispensers and six representatives of hearing-impaired consumers or those with medical or audiological knowledge plus an independent chairman. The Government had reservations about this proposed composition regarding it as a recipe for confrontation and a formula which was bound to put unreasonable pressure on the chairman. He could be required on a regular basis to exercise his casting vote, running the risk of being seen to be "siding" with one group or the other and jeopardising his independence. It is placing a heavy burden indeed on any chairman to retain this delicate balance while seeming to be impartial and commanding the respect of all members of the council.
The Government therefore tabled an amendment in order that the committee in another place could fully consider the relative merits of two alternative possible compositions of the council. The Government's amendment was approved and now forms Clause 5 of the Bill. It provides for the council to be comprised from 1st January 1990 of four representatives of dispensers, four representatives of hearing-impaired consumers and four with appropriate medical or audiological knowledge plus an independent chairman. We believe that on the basis of this formula the council will be enabled to reach balanced decisions. It also ensures the continuing independent stance of the chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, explained each clause in his introduction. I therefore do not propose to do the same. However, perhaps I may deal with some of the issues that were raised during the course of our debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked about penalties. To those who fear that the penalties listed in Clause 3 would not be sufficient, I would stress that there is a need for consistency between this and other similar Acts and the need for some compatibility with the level of criminal fine which can be imposed on an unregistered dispenser which the Bill proposes to set at level 4—that is, £1,000.I would point out also that the disciplinary committee would be empowered to impose one or more of any of the penalties in Clause 3; for example, a fine plus six months' suspension.
Concerning the council itself, the Department of Trade and Industry's present practice is to invite
236
nominations to the membership from a wide range of organisations, and the department will continue to do that. These include bodies representing the interests of the hearing impaired, including the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Association of the Hard of Hearing, the National Deaf Children's Society, the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, Age Concern and Help The Aged. A number of specialist medical bodies are consulted as well as the main trade associations representing hearing aid dispensers, the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists and the British Hearing Aid Industry Association.
The Department of Trade and Industry is always happy to add organisations to the consultation list. In addition, it is open to any member of the public with genuine involvement with the dispensing of hearing aids or with the hearing impaired or who has specialised technical knowledge of deafness to make nominations. All nominations are considered on their merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, quite rightly asked a question about the funding of the council. He asked me to justify the funding, if I remember, in a more respectable fashion than had been done in another place. I shall try to do that. The important point to realise is that there are precedents for this provided by the Opticians Act 1958. Although the General Optical Council is under the ultimate control of the Privy Council, its constitution, status and function are broadly similar to those of the HAC. The GOC consists of 24 persons, of whom only seven are chosen to represent registered opticians. As with the HAC, they have to pay a fee to be entered on the register.
Furthermore, the existence of the council is in the industry's own interests. It requires dispensers to be registered and to maintain standards which improve the image of the industry as a whole. The level of the annual fee has of course to be approved by the Secretary of State, who also approves the codes of conduct and standards. Therefore he gives full consideration to all the financial implications.
There is nothing in the Bill which would increase costs. Rather, they stand to be reduced in view of an amendment to disciplinary costs. The main area of cost to the council, as far as we can see, is in those disciplinary proceedings. If the industry abides by the Act and the code of conduct, there should not be a significant increase in disciplinary activity. In addition, the government amendment would allow the disciplinary committee to recover costs from a guilty party. Also, fines will go to the council and thus generally tend to reduce registration fees.
Furthermore, the way that the council has been set up, with four representatives of dispensers, four representatives of hearing impaired consumers and four with appropriate medical or audiological knowledge, is, I believe, not necessarily an eight-to-four vote against the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked about the RNID fair hearing campaign. The RNID's proposals are radical and far reaching. They cut around the present arrangements under both the NHS and the private sector. The Government would not wish their consideration to be constrained by an artificial

237
deadline, but your Lordships may rest assured that they will respond as soon as the proposals have been given the thorough consideration that they merit.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked about the Cancellation of Contract Regulations 1987. Of course these apply to unsolicited home visits. The regulations give the consumer the right to cancel the contract within seven days. The Department of Trade and Industry wrote to the Hearing Aid Council drawing its attention to the regulations when they came out. If there are problems, I shall certainly pass them on to my noble friend the Secretary of State and we shall no doubt look into them.
I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the Government are content with the Bill as it has emerged from another place. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should just like very briefly to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on their skill in widening the debate on a comparatively modest Bill. I think that the points which they made are certainly worth consideration.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Sherfield is content with the explanation which has been given about the modest registration fee of £66. No doubt he will wish to study the words of the Minister very carefully in Hansard tomorrow. I think that that is all that I wish to say. I trust that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.15 to 8.35 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 369C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 369B.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: After that adjournment I should like to explain this series of amendments, Nos. 369C, 369D and 369E. It was confirmed in the Government's recent consultation paper that where farmers are obliged to restrict their agricultural practices beyond the degree which could be regarded as good agricultural practice they should be compensated.
Although the new clause provides Ministers with powers to make payments to persons affected by the imposition of requirements, prohibitions or restrictions in relation to any agricultural land, the amount of compensation, and indeed the question of whether to pay any compensation at all, is left entirely to the discretion of Ministers.
238
I believe that as a matter of justice the legislation should provide that where persons have restrictions imposed upon them there should be a guarantee of compensation to them for any loss or damage which they sustain. The amendments would provide a clear right to be compensated where mandatory orders are imposed and also allow for disputes about the amount of compensation to be referred to the Lands Tribunal in the normal way.
I fully understand that the present Government, and probably future governments, might be prepared to give assurances that they will compensate farmers for compulsory restrictions. However, sadly, such assurances are no substitute for safeguards in the legislation.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Stanley. I galloped on a little before dinner and said then what I shall say now only briefly. I believe that within the new clause there must be more certainty for farmers, in view of the horrendous situation in which they may find themselves. Compensation cannot be left to a clause as permissive as this. There must be a proper recourse to arbitration through the Lands Tribunal.
I believe that it would be to the Government's benefit. The meaning of the clause has not yet sunk in to the farming community. I believe that it will respond much better to a certainty about where it may stand as regards money compensation, rather than seeing it left in the hands of the relevant Minister. I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: As I said a little time ago, Amendments Nos. 369C, D and E are interrelated and would affect the compensation arrangements for a Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme involving compulsory requirements, prohibitions or restrictions.
In the case of compulsory measures, the Government's Amendment No. 369B provides for the payments of such amounts, if any, as may be specified in or determined under the relevant order. Amendments Nos. 369C, D and E would, however, amend this government amendment by requiring the Government to pay compensation automatically for any loss or damage sustained as a result of compulsory measures. I should like to explain why the Government do not support these amendments, while at the same time giving some assurances as to our intentions regarding the payment of compensation.
These amendments go too far because it would not necessarily be right to pay compensation in every single case of loss as a result of restrictions introduced to reduce nitrate leaching. For example, it would be contrary to the polluter pays principle to pay compensation to a farmer for complying with a restriction based on good agricultural practice even though that might impose a cost in some cases; for example, the construction of a silage effluent facility. We could also be in difficulty with the Community's state aid provisions. Similar arguments would apply in the case of general measures based on good agricultural practice; for example, restrictions on the

239
timing of fertiliser applications which might actually benefit some farmers but where small losses might occur in other cases.
The Government have, however, on a number of occasions made clear their general approach to the payment of compensation. As I said in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, on 22nd March this year, the Government believe that, where farmers are obliged to restrict their agricultural activities beyond the degree which could be regarded as good agricultural practice, they should be compensated. The Government's more detailed ideas on compensation are set out in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the consultation document issued by my right honourable friend earlier this month in which the views of interested parties are sought on this and other issues. I can assure Members of the Committee that those views will be taken into account before conclusions are reached on this matter.
I should mention that Amendment No. 369E would provide for arbitration by the Lands Tribunal in the case of disputed compensation. The Government accept that it is likely that arbitration provisions will be required in the case of compulsory restrictions with compensation. However, the precise nature of those arbitration arrangements will depend on how the compensation itself is determined and that is a matter for the subordinate legislation which will be made under this Bill rather than for this Bill itself.
The Government considered a simple requirement in the Bill that compensation would be paid for restrictions beyond good agricultural practice but that was not considered feasible because of the lack of a definition of "good practice". This is a complex area, as I have already said, and one in respect of which consultations are currently taking place. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to hold his horses at least until the consultation period is finished, because he too will have the right to put his views.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure whether silence from this Dispatch Box is taken as assent or dissent and I am inhibited from making a full intervention in this discussion because I was not able to be present immediately before the adjournment when the principal amendment was debated.
Without entering into the detail of the debate between the Government Front Bench and their Back Benchers, I should like to make two points only. First, it is quite clear that whatever measures are taken to prevent further leaching of nitrate into the water supply, that process will be far too long term and will be inadequate to deal with the problem of pollution. It will also have to take place by treatment of the water coming off the land. That is the first point. Everybody may be agreed on that but I think it is worth saying.
Secondly, the next Labour Government will not feel in any way committed to continuing any experimental scheme which has been devised by this Government in order to buy off the farmers. I am also not convinced that this scheme produces justice
240
for the farmers or, much more important, that it produces a significant level of reduction in the nitrate pollution on the land. I believe that this is a half-baked and inadequate scheme which does not really deserve the support of the Committee under any circumstances. I am not saying we shall vote against it but, despite my temerity in interfering in this private quarrel, I must say that I believe that what is proposed by the Government is an inadequate remedy for the very real problems which exist.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that he should be ashamed of himself for what he has just said. However, I am not exactly surprised because I do not suppose that there is much nitrate in his bathwater in Haringey.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we discussed quite fully the proposition that establishing nitrate sensitive areas was probably not the right answer in many cases and my noble friend on the Front Bench accepted that.
In fact, I am not quarrelling with my Front Bench today for a change. I am with them. This matter has been forced on them, as the noble Lord knows, by the European Community and has been forced on them in a hurry. I believe that the Government are quite correctly trying to steady matters down to see whether we get the right answers because the matter is unbelievably complex.
As regards the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I like assurances but this case is so radical that we must have it on the face of some Bill or other and I am not sure where it should be inserted. When the consultation paper is completed, there will need to be legislation. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me how that will be done and whether we shall have a chance to debate that legislation, because I believe that that will be necessary.
There is one point on which I have to cross swords with my noble friend; that is, the issue that the polluter pays. I am entirely in favour of the principle but let us get it quite clearly into this Committee's head that the Government have accepted in this particular case, for the reasons we debated earlier, that the polluter does not pay. That is why I believe that the noble Baroness must look between now and Report for a better definition of compensation.
If the farmer has made a mistake and pollutes because of his slurry pit or silage tank, then that is fine. He will be caught under the Control of Pollution Act and I am all for that. However, if he has to make a brand new slurry tank or if he has to restrict his operations in any way which will cause him to suffer loss or damage, then the Government must have a share in it. I shall leave this matter for the moment. I hope that I have explained my problems and I shall come back to this matter on Report because this is probably the most substantive of my amendments to her amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 369D and 369E, as amendments to Amendment No. 369B, not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 369B, Amendment No. 369F:
In the proposed subsection (8), line 11, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: Nitrate sensitive orders are likely to provide for a procedure whereby farmers can apply to Ministers for consent to carry out activities which they have either agreed voluntarily with the Minister, need his specific permission or, where that permission is required as a result of a mandatory order, they have been imposed on the farmer.
Subsection (8)(e) of the proposed new section would allow for the imposition of charges where an application for consent has been made or has been given or where there has been any act or omission in pursuance of any such consent.
Given that the Government have accepted the principle that farmers should be compensated for compulsory restrictions in NSAs, it seems to me inconsistent then to levy charges for obtaining consents for certain activities. It would be helpful to hear from my noble friend how the Government intend to exercise this power to charge. Will charges be modest and reasonable in relation to individual farmers? I give an example. It would be totally unfair to expect farmers to foot the bill for expensive scientific investigation work to prove that there was a need for an NSA. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Subsection (8)(e) of the Government's Amendment No. 369B would enable charges to be imposed in relation to applications for, or the granting of, consents for carrying on activities not allowed except by such consents. Amendment No. 369F would delete this provision and therefore not allow such charges to be imposed.
The Government cannot accept this amendment because it will be normal practice elsewhere in the Water Bill for powers to be taken to require applicants to regulatory authorities for concessional advantage to contribute to the cost of such applications. This is in line with the polluter pays principle. The provision reflects an identical one in Clause 108 which applies to water protection zones. There are also a number of precedents for such charges; for example, the issue of planning consents.
I can assure the Committee, however, that the Government's amendment would permit the imposition of charges only where the arrangements are laid down by regulation. Such regulations would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. If, therefore, the Government at some future date make use of the power to impose charges under paragraph (e) there would be the opportunity for detailed consideration of such arrangements in this Chamber.
In the light of these explanations and assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not pursue this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The Government have failed to follow through the basic principle that with NSAs, I repeat, the polluter does not pay. If my noble friend can get that back to the Government it would help us all the way through. If she is saying that we pay, it is a different matter, but the Government have not accepted that we pay so in my opinion it is no good saying that, just because the rest of the Bill does not accept this sort of compensation, it follows in this case. We are the exception in so far as, for better or worse—I should like to say better—we are not polluters in this case.
I shall have to return to this matter on Report because I want to know what will be going into the regulations and I am concerned about excessive charges being made for possible research. Meanwhile, unless my noble friend has anything else to say——
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, perhaps I may pop in before my noble friend sits own. I should like to explain further the polluter pays principle. We certainly agree with the general principle that the polluter should pay but today's levels of nitrates are the result of many years of farming activity. Moreover, the same farming activity on similar land can give rise to different rates of nitrate leaching. Simply, it is impossible to identify the polluter and quantify his or her contribution to pollution. Compensation questions do arise of course for substantial restrictions going beyond good agricultural practice. I hope that that clarifies the situation a little more for my noble friend.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I believe that it clarifies the situation and gives this amendment, and my previous amendment, even more merit. My noble friend is shaking her head. We shall have to come back to this on Report. I raise these as genuine probing amendments and I shall have to read carefully the Minister's remarks. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 369B agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Procedure for certain Orders]:
[Amendment No. 370 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 370A:
Page 206, line 34, at end insert—
(" . Before applying to the Secretary of State for an order under section 108 of this Act the relevant authority shall consult with the water undertaker and sewerage undertaker concerned.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch. It would require the NRA to consult the water and sewerage undertakers in relation to a proposal to create a water protection zone. It is related to an amendment moved in another place (No. 598) to which the Minister, Mr. Moynihan, said that he was sympathetic. He recognised that the

243
water undertakers will have a close and special interest in the proposals for protection zones, that the water undertaker' interest will be equal to that of the local authority and that a case can also be made in respect of sewerage undertakers, though not so strong a one. At the time the Minister said that he had not been able to consult the lawyers about the wording of the amendment but that he would consider it further with the wish to accept it. So far, despite those words, no government amendment has been forthcoming, but this is a point in which there is interest by future plc groups.
Amendment No. 370A is somewhat stronger than the amendment proposed and apparently almost accepted in another place. The amendment in the other place required only that notice relating to a water protection zone had to be served on the water and sewerage undertakers. The wording in this amendment has been modified and proposes that there should be consultation by the NRA with the relevant undertakers and that consultation should take place at an early stage.
It is clear that both water and sewerage undertakers have a strong interest in water protection zones. They realise that sensitive water resources which are abstracted by the water undertaker will be protected in such zones. The NRA, for example, will be empowered to regulate agricultural practices such as the use of nitrates or other fertilisers and pesticides. However, the creation of a water protection zone will have a significant impact on the quality of water abstracted by the water undertakers and it is possible that modifications to the operational equipment will be required as a consequence. Therefore, it is important that the water undertakers are made aware of any intentions of the NRA in this area at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sewerage undertakers can also be affected by such an order to create a water protection zone; for instance, the discharge policy for the sewage effluent from a treatment works and sludge disposal operations might be affected. So it is equally important that early notice should be given to the sewerage part of the business and that consultations should take place.
The NRA will be concerned with environmental protection in general. Water undertakers will wish to see the quality of the water which they abstract being maintained. Is it not therefore appropriate to write on the face of the Bill a requirement for the NRA to consult with sewerage and water undertakers in order to achieve both the environmental improvements and the high quality of water supply in the most effective way? The imposition of an order unexpectedly and without prior notice and consultation would make operational compliance difficult. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The Government have already indicated during the discussion of the Bill in another place that they will give consideration to the general
244
objectives underlying this amendment. We have now done so. Our conclusion is that in the case of sewerage undertakers there is no special interest which would justify their involvement as consultees in respect of protection zones. However, the same is not the case in respect of water undertakers. Their duties in respect of water supplies, and for the ultimate quality of such supplies, mean they are bound to have a particular interest in protection zone proposals, which are likely to be directed in particular at measures for the protection of water resources likely to be abstracted for human supplies.
In the circumstances, the Government will bring forward at Report an amendment to the procedures in Schedule 7 to provide for the involvement of the water undertaker. In most cases of course it is likely that the NRA will have consulted the water undertaker in advance, but we think that the appropriate statutory mechanism is for the NRA to be required to serve a copy of its draft notice on the water undertaker, which may then make representations to the Secretary of State, if it so requires. I hope that my noble friend will feel that this goes a substantial way to meet his aims and that he will therefore feel that there is no need to press his amendment further.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am grateful to my noble friend for those assurances. In the future many water and sewerage undertakers will be the same plc. But there will still be areas where the sewerage undertaker is not the same organisation as the water supply undertaker. Under such circumstances I can see that there might be difficulties if the information was not available to the sewerage undertaker. I look forward to a government amendment coming forward at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 371 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 371 A:
Page 207, line 31, after ("above") insert ("and to the service of notices of the proposed modification on such local authorities as appear to him to be likely to be interested in it.").
The noble Lord said: These two amendments refer to two significant features of the arrangements in Schedule 11 for making applications and the granting of consents for effluent discharges.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment has already been spoken to.
Baroness Trumpington: May I apologise to the Committee because I believe I should be speaking to this amendment? I am extremely sorry. Someone must move it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It has already been spoken to.
Baroness Trumpington: Part I, paragraph 1, of the government Amendment No. 371C provides that nitrate sensitive areas can be designated only on

245
application by the National Rivers Authority. Paragraph 1 (3) does, however, contain a transitional provision whereby an application by the authority shall not be required in the case of any order made within six months of the transfer date. That is within six months of the establishment of the authority at the beginning of September 1989. My noble friend's Amendment No. 371 CA——
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry, but I am completely lost.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): The Question before the Committee is that Amendment No. 371A be agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is my understanding that this amendment had already been spoken to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Consents under Chapter I and application to the Authority]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 371AB:
Page 117, line 38, after ("Chapter") insert ("or under Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974").
The noble Earl said: I could readily understand if this amendment caused the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, some puzzlement. As the Committee will know, Part II of the Control of Pollution Act will continue to operate, as amended, in Scotland, and because of the way the England-Scottish Border runs, there is the possibility of discharges consented to on one side of the Border having polluting effects on the other. To secure that the legislation operates fairly we therefore need to cover the possibility by providing that in certain circumstances a consent given under the Control of Pollution Act north of the Border be a defence against an offence arising to the south. This is the reason for this proposal to insert a reference to the Control of Pollution Act in Clause 109(4)(a) dealing with defences in respect of pollution in other legislation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to have an assurance that this means that the pollution caused by the horses of Northumbrian raiders attacking my ancestral town of Jedburgh and raping its women and children will be covered by this Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee. The question of raping the women and children is something that I shall have to refer to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health——
Baroness Trumpington: Rape is the "in" crop these days.
The Earl of Caithness: It is also a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
246
Scotland. I am sure that the raiders will take full note of what the noble Lord said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 371B:
Page 117, line 40, at end insert—
("(5) A consent granted by virtue of this section shall specify the substances authorised to be discharged to water under it and the Secretary of State may give directions as to the way in which the Authority shall carry out this duty.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment changes the way in which consents are set. At present consents only specify what may not be discharged and usually do so in the form of a set amount of a number of particular substances. This amendment would reverse that position by requiring the consent to specify what could be discharged under it. To discharge anything that was not authorised would be an offence. Obviously there will be a number of common substances in many discharges. For this purpose the Secretary of State may give directions to the authority about how these will be stated, so that rather than having to set out each and every substance authorised a common format can be developed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Lists of dangerous chemicals are like the prerogatives of princes—they do daily grow. A good many substances which are now regarded as potentially dangerous polluters are ones about which we knew nothing whatever 20 or 30 years ago. A number of others are ones we knew existed. We were not aware of the dangers. If we do not agree to this amendment we may be taking considerable and quite unknown risks for the future. I commend it to the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Concern has been expressed that a discharger could add to his discharges a new pollutant not covered by the specific terms of the consent. If a discharger does this in a way which materially adds to the noxious quality of the effluent he will be guilty of an offence unless he seeks a review of the consent. It is always possible that a badly worded consent may mean in a particular case that an element of a discharge is not covered and that an additional element may be added. But it will be inappropriate and indeed ineffective to seek by the terms of primary legislation to deal with issues which are for the detailed terms of consent.
The essential position is simple. The discharger must apply for a consent for his discharge, and for the NRA to give a decision upon it will require that the application should involve a full and proper account of what the effluent constitutes. Equally, the consent must relate clearly to the application and to the effluent portrayed in it. If significant elements of the discharge are not disclosed in the application, or if new elements are added to the discharge, the consent will not afford the discharger protection because the discharge in question is no longer the discharge for which the consent was granted. In the circumstances, we do not believe this amendment to be necessary or appropriate. However, the need for careful drafting of consents and a clear link to the terms of the application is a matter to which we shall want the NRA to give the closest attention.
Lord Addington: I am to an extent reassured by what the noble Earl has said, but he will understand that the basic theme behind the amendment is to ensure that nothing can get in. I appreciate that much of this will be dealt with by the NRA making sure that it gives careful consideration to consent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 371C:
Before Schedule 11, insert the following new schedule:
("ORDERS DESIGNATING NITRATE SENSITIVE AREAS

PART I APPLICATIONS BY THE AUTHORITY FOR DESIGNATION ORDERS
Orders made only on application
1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, the relevant Minister shall not make an order under section (nitrate sensitive areas) of this Act by virtue of which any land is designated as a nitrate sensitive area, except with the consent of the Treasury and on an application which—

(a) has been made by the Authority in accordance with paragraph 2 below; and

(b) by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) of that paragraph identifies the controlled waters with respect to which that land is so comprised by the order.

(2) This paragraph shall not apply to an order which reproduces or amends an existing order without adding any land appearing to the relevant Minister to constitute a significant area to the land already comprised in the areas for the time being designated as nitrate sensitive areas.
(3) An application by the Authority shall not be required by virtue of this paragraph in the case of any order made before the end of the period of six months beginning with the transfer date.
Procedure for applications
2.—(1) The Authority shall not for the purposes of paragraph 1 above apply for the making of any order under section (nitrate sensitive areas) of this Act by which any land would be comprised in the areas for the time being designated as nitrate sensitive areas unless it appears to the Authority—

(a) that pollution is or is likely to be caused by the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of, or of anything done in connection with, the use of particular land in England and Wales for agricultural puposes; and

(b) that the provisions for the time being in force in relation to those waters and that land are not sufficient, in the opinion of the Authority, for preventing or conrolling such an entry of nitrate into those waters.

(2) An application under this paragraph shall identify—

(a) the controlled waters appearing to the Authority to be waters which the nitrate is or is likely to enter; and

(b) the land appearing to the Authority to be the land the use of which for agricultural purposes, or the doing of anything in connection with whose use for agricultural purposes, is resulting or is likely to result in the entry of nitrate into those waters.

(3) An application under this paragraph shall be made—

(a) where the land identified in the application is wholly in Wales, by serving a notice containing the application on the Secretary of State; and

(b) in any oher case, by serving such a notice on the Secretary of State and on the Minister.

PART II ORDERS CONTAINING MANDATORY PROVISIONS ETC.
Publication of proposal for order containing mandatory provisions
3.—(1) This paragraph applies where the relevant Minister proposes to make an order under section (nitrate sensitive areas) of this Act which—
248

(a) makes or modifies any such provision as is authorised by subsection (4)(a) of that section; and

(b) in doing so, contains provision which is not of one of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(i) provision reproducing existing provisions without modification and in relation to substantially the same area; and

(ii) provision modifying any existing provisions so as to make them less onerous.

(2) The relevant Minister shall, before making any such order as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) publish a notice with respect to the proposed order, at least once in each of two successive weeks, in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in relation to which the proposed order will have effect;

(b) not later than the date on which that notice is first published, serve a copy of the notice on the Authority and on every local authority whose area includes the whole or any part of that locality; and

(c) publish a notice in the London Gazette which—

(i) names every local authority on whom a notice is required to be served under this paragraph;

(ii) specifies a place where a copy of the proposed order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected; and

(iii) gives the name of every newspaper in which the notice required by virtue of paragraph (a) above was published and the date of an issue containing the notice.

(3) The notice required by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above to be published with respect to any proposed order shall—

(a) state the general effect of the proposed order;

(b) specify a place where a copy of the proposed order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times during the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the first publication of the notice; and

(c) state that any person may, within that period, by notice to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, to the Secretary of State or the Minister, object to the making of the order.

Supply of copies of proposed orders
4. The Secretary of State and, in a case where he is proposing to join in making the order, the Minister shall, at the request of any person and on payment by that person of such charge (if any) as the Secretary of State or the Minister may reasonably require, furnish that person with a copy of any proposed order of which notice has been published under paragraph 3 above.
Modifications of proposals
5.—(1) Where notices with respect to any proposed order have been published and served in accordance with paragraph 3 above and that period of twenty-eight days mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph has expired, the relevant Minister may make the order either in the proposed terms or, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below (but without any further compliance with paragraph 3 above), in those terms as modified in such manner as he thinks fit, or may decide not to make any order.
(2) The relevant Minister shall not make such a modification of a proposed order of which notice has been so published and served as he considers is likely adversely to affect any persons unless he has given such notices as he considers appropriate for enabling those persons to object to the modification.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above and to the service of notices of proposed modification on such local authorities as appear to him to be likely to be interested in it, the modifications that may be made by the relevant Minister include any modification of the area designated by the proposed order as a nitrate sensitive area.
(4) For the purposes of this Schedule it shall be immaterial, in a case in which a modification such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above incorporates land in England in an area which (but for the modification) would have been wholly in Wales, that any requirements of paragraph 3 above in relation to the proposed order have been complied with by the Secretary of State, rather than by the Secretary of State and the Minister.
Consideration of objections etc.
6. Without prejudice to section 116 of this Act, where notices with respect to any proposed order have been published and served in accordance with paragraph 3 above, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State and the Minister may, if he or they consider it appropriate to do so, hold a local inquiry before deciding whether or not to make the proposed order or to make it with modifications.
Consent of Treasury for payment provisions
7. The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the making of any order under section (nitrate sensitive areas) the making of which does not require the consent of the Treasury by virtue of paragraph 1 above but which contains any such provision as is authorised by subsection (4)(b) of that section.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371 CA:
In the proposed paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: I think that we are now on the straight and narrow and back on nitrate sensitive areas. This amendment points out that under the terms of the new schedule Ministers may not make NSA orders except with the consent of the Treasury and on application made to the National Rivers Authority. In making an application for an order the NRA must be of the opinion that,
"pollution is or is likely to be caused by the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of … the use of particular land … for agricultural purposes";
and, secondly, that the provisions presently in force are not in the NRA's opinion sufficient for preventing or controlling such entry of nitrate into the waters. We discussed other methods earlier.
The application must identify the relevant waters and the relevant agricultural land. However, by virtue of paragraph 1(3) this procedure would not come into operation until six months have elapsed after the transfer date when water authorities transfer their functions to the NRA and the new water companies; in other words, until six months after the transfer date, Ministers as opposed to the NRA make NSA orders without the need—this is the point of my amendment—for carefully considered applications by the NRA. Although this may be defended as merely a transitional provision, in practice I cannot see any good reason for having it with the shadow NRA in the background. Therefore the amendment seeks to remove this transitional period. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall now give my noble friend the pleasure of hearing the first paragraph again. Part I, Clause 1 of the Government's Amendment 371C provides that nitrate sensitive areas can be designated only on application by the National Rivers Authority. Paragraph 1(3) does, however, contain a transitional provision whereby an application by the authority shall not be required in the case of any order made within six months of the transfer date, that is within six months of the establishment of the authority at the beginning of September 1989. My noble friend's Amendment No. 371CA would, however, delete this transitional provision.
250
I must resist this amendment. The Government are anxious, following consultations with those involved, to press ahead quickly with the establishment of pilot nitrate sensitive areas within which voluntary restrictions will be tested. Wherever practicable, we intend proceeding following application by the National Rivers Authority in relation to particular areas, and the general intention is to work closely with the authority at stages of concern to them in the setting up of protection zones. During the first six months of the establishment of the authority, however, it may be necessary to establish pilot nitrate sensitive areas without formal application by the authority, which will only recently have been set up.
I hope that my noble friend will not pursue this amendment, given the need to avoid the risk of unnecessary delay in setting up pilot protection zones, and my assurance that only voluntary restrictions will in any case apply within them.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think that this is the first amendment upon which I can meet my noble friend a quarter of the way. I do not feel so strongly about this matter; it is a transitional one. However, I shall just repeat the question asked by my noble friend Lord Middleton: "What is the hurry?" If we have the NRA there already, I should have thought that it would be better to let it do the job, rather than shoot from the hip—which seems to me to be happening here—and let the Minister do it. However, I shall leave that aspect for the moment and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371CB:
In the proposed paragraph 2(1)(a), line 1, leave out first ("is") and insert ("has been").
The noble Lord said: This is really a technical amendment on grammar and I am not sure whether I should be the person who moves it. I believe that a wording which states that pollution "has been" caused by the entry of nitrate into controlled waters is more appropriate than the present phrase that pollution "is" caused by the entry of nitrate into controlled waters. I must point out that my amendment would leave in the words, "is likely to be caused", thus allowing the NRA to take action if it thinks or believes that the nitrate level is creeping downwards into the aquifers. However, my amendent would still allow the NSA to have a nitrate zone if nitrate pollution was already there.
It is a small point. However, if my noble friend and her advisers were to put a cold rag around their heads, I think that they would see that my proposal makes rather more sense; although, if she puts another cold rag on her head, she may see that it is not quite so sympathetic to the farmer as is her amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I honestly do not think that this amendment to the Government's proposal would be correct. The effect of the Government's proposal as contained in the proposed new schedule in Amendment No. 371C is to enable designation of a nitrate sensitive area either where pollution is at that time being caused by the entry of nitrate into controlled waters, or where such pollution is likely at some future date.
The effect of Amendment No. 371CB would be to enable an area to be designated where nitrate pollution had occurred some years ago, even where there was no longer such pollution or the likelihood of it. That cannot be right, and I hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not intend to waste the Committee's time on this matter. I still believe that I am right. If my noble kinsman Lord Russell were here, he might have a better idea than I do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371CC:
In the proposed paragraph 2, at end insert—
("(4) not later than one week from the date on which an application under this paragraph is made, the Authority shall publish a notice with respect to the application at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in relation to which the application applies.").
The noble Lord said: The schedule at present provides no means by which anyone could hear that the NRA had applied to the Minister for an NSA order. The Committee realises that it is the NRA that applies to the Minister for an NSA. It is only fair that people in the area affected by the order should be made aware that the NRA has made the application. It would be impossible for NRA officials to wander around sampling water on farms without everyone knowing that they were there.
The amendment therefore ensures that the NRA would have to publish a notice in the local newspaper advertising that it is applying to the Minister for an NSA. Anyone who lives in the country, and understands it, will realise that that will suppress a great deal of mumbling and grumbling. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: We have no intention of being secretive, merely practical. When the authority applies for an area to be designated, it is not known at that time whether the application will be accepted unamended by the Government, accepted with amendments notably to the area in question, or not accepted. Even in the case of acceptance, the agricultural measures to apply would not be known at that time. Automatic publicity at this time therefore would seem to be unnecessary. It would give rise to unnecessary concern and to questions about the possibility and nature of restrictions which could not at that time be answered.
However, I appreciate that there might be a need for an early public announcement in the event both
252
of an application by the authority and a decision by government to proceed with details of agricultural survey of an area in advance of the possible preparation of an order designating it as a nitrate sensitive area. In that event, although there would not be a legal commitment, I can give an assurance that the Government's intentions would be to announce the fact that a particular area had been proposed by the authority as a candidate NSA and that the Government were seriously considering this, including undertaking a detailed agricultural survey.
If it were decided to proceed with a designation, the proposed order, if it contained new compulsory measures, would of course have in any case to be publicised widely and there would be the opportunity for objections at that stage.
When I first heard my noble friend's amendment I felt that it had a tempting ring to it, but having listened and looked into the whole situation extremely carefully I believe that the amendment would cause greater trouble and not less. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Hylton: While the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is making up his mind what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may say that these issues are likely to cause a certain number of farmers to change their whole farming system in a marked and deep-rooted way. They will therefore require the maximum length of time in which to prepare for the changes. That may be allowed for when the definitive order eventually emerges, but I do not know whether that will be the case. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us reassurance on that point.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the consultation document which we have put out. Perhaps he would like to reserve judgment until he has seen that, after which of course he could put forward his views. We are only too well aware of the effect that this serious situation will have on farmers' lives, but it is inavoidable. This is a very complicated issue which we are doing our best to solve properly.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am very grateful to my noble friend for coming, I think, halfway towards my views. I fully take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which I have been trying to convey to the Committee, that if NSAs are made they will revolutionise farming to a drastic extent. It could mean that the public would have to pay more, which might help me as a farmer, but I do not think that that is particularly kind or right thing to do. I am just saying that these are drastic measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, indicated, and that farmers and the public will need time to adapt to them.
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I take her point. Obviously she has looked at the matter carefully and seen that there is a middle way. We do not want to upset people too soon. On the other hand, we want to give them as much time as possible before such an order comes into being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371D:
In the proposed paragraph 3(2), at end insert—
("(d) not later than the date on which the notice required by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above was first published serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land comprised in the order a copy of that notice.").
The noble Lord said: As the schedule stands, Ministers have to advertise proposed NSA orders in local newspapers and the London Gazette. However, there is no obligation to notify individual owners and occupiers of land, even though the order might contain compulsory restrictions on agricultural activities which would have very serious implications for their livelihood, as many Members of this Committee have pointed out.
There are numerous precedents for the notification of proposals to individual owners and occupiers; for example, proposals for new sites of special scientific interest and compulsory purchase orders. This amendment would ensure that everyone in the proposed NSA areas would know of the proposals and would therefore be in a position to take steps to protect their rights, if need be. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I do not see why individual owners and occupiers who are going to be affected by an order should not be told. I see no practical reason why they should not be written to. If that Nature Conservancy Council can do it where nature reserves and SSIs are concerned, it could be done in this case. The name and address of every occupier of a holding is known. As my noble friend has said, those people whose livelihoods may be severely affected ought to be told, if only as a matter of administrative good manners.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like very strongly to support individual notification, for all the reasons that both my noble friends have given. It is generally acknowledged that this proposal is going to be very difficult for farmers. I should have thought that it was very much in the Government's interests to notify people individually, to do everything straight down the line and as properly as possible. I give the amendment every support.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: The amendment that we are now studying would require us to notify every owner, lessee and occupier of any proposal for compulsory agricultural measures in a nitrate sensitive area. This would be in addition to the present requirement set out in the new schedule for notice to be given through publication in a number of local newspapers circulating in the locality and in the London Gazette. In addition, a copy would be served on every local authority. The notice will explain the general effect of the proposal and specify where a copy of the proposed order—which would set out the area and measures—may be inspected. These provisions would give ample notice of any proposal for compulsory measures. And, of course,
254
depending upon any representations, we may hold a public inquiry.
With the greatest respect, I do not think my noble friend Lord Middleton was comparing like with like, because, on a completely practical note, I do not think we would necessarily know all the interests which my noble friend would have us notify. We simply do not have comprehensive data on every landowner, lessee, occupier and so on. To attempt to locate them could well be a very substantial task, with no guarantee of success.
However, I ask noble Lords to be assured that compulsory measures would not be likely to arrive like a bolt from the blue. There will be every opportunity for those with an interest to have access to information. Let us not forget that we intend such measures only if and after voluntary measures had been tried and failed in an NSA. We shall keep people informed of the progress and effects of any voluntary scheme. It would not be in our interests to operate the scheme any other way. After all, we need the farmers' co-operation.
To sum up, this amendment is unnecessary and would be administratively onerous, to say the least, if not impossible, to fulfil. But I have no hesitation in giving noble Lords an assurance that those with an interest will be made aware of any proposals. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am deeply disappointed by my noble friend's remarks. I can hardly agree with a word. If I really wanted to annoy the Front Bench, I would say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that the reply must have come straight out of a computer in Marsham Street. I am sure that I shall get into trouble over that. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole problem. The Committee has accepted that this is something radical that could happen to a farmer—much more radical than a site of special scientific interest—yet you do not even bother to go and tell him personally! What a Government! What an organisation! I am sorry, but I am not pleased with my noble friend.
I should explain to my noble friend that if the NCC, who have only about two men and a boy, can notify every single owner and occupier in the Berwyn Hills, which comprise 55,000 acres in Wales—and Welsh farmers are not always very easy to find and they always speak the opposite language to that which you speak—this department could surely do it here. I shall come back to this on Report. I am deeply disappointed and I hope that my noble friend will see the point of my argument. Unless my noble friend wishes to say anything, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371DA:
In the proposed paragraph 3(3)(b), line 3, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-two").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 371DD. Under the terms of the schedule, the relevant Minister may not proceed to make an order until 28 days have elapsed from notices of the order being first published. However, I believe that is an unduly short period for objections, given that most people want to find out more about the implications of orders before deciding to object; and also given the vagaries of the post—a letter often takes a week to get to me from here—and the fact that many people may be away for a time or doing something else. Therefore these amendments seek to extend the period for objections from four weeks to six weeks. Before my noble friend replies, I repeat my continuing point that this is a very serious matter. We need time to think about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I wish to add a few words of support. I think that, in all the circumstances, 28 days is too short a period. This amendment is very much on a level with the previous amendment. The Government should consider doing everything they possibly can to keep the farmer informed, give him time to think and consult his advisers. One cannot help feeling that as some of the nitrates took about 50 years to come down through the chalk aquifers, it is a little unreasonable for the Government to be in quite such a hurry. I give the amendment my greatest support.
Baroness Trumpington: The key point here is that an interested person is simply being asked whether or not he wishes to make an objection to the making of the proposed order. He is not being asked to make out a detailed case for an objection. In these circumstances, the period allowed of 28 days is appropriate and sufficient and follows other similar precedents—for example, proposed Schedule 7—relating to the establishment of water protection zones pursuant to Clause 108.I therefore hope that these two amendments will be withdrawn. However, I wish to look at this matter again with absolutely no commitment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that remark. While she is considering this matter, perhaps she will bear in mind that water protection zones are a different matter from this provision. I am sorry to keep repeating myself, but these are serious matters for the farmer and indeed for the country. I wish to mention another instance against my noble friend which concerns Ministry of Transport line orders for new motorways and trunk roads. In the Highways Act 1980, under Schedule 1, paragraph 1, one is allowed a three-month objection period. New roads do not affect farmers' lives half as much as the Government's proposal may affect them. I do not use that example with any desire to be unpleasant to my noble friend, but perhaps she will bear that in mind when she is considering the provision. However, I am most grateful for what she has offered me.
Baroness Trumpington: I must say that my noble friend keeps repeating how important this matter is,
256
as if we did not realise how important it is. This enormous Bill reflects the importance of the whole situation. We realise how our provisions will affect farmers. I too have repeated myself quite enough on this subject.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am more than aware that my noble friend is aware of the importance of this matter. What I am not so sure of is whether the public and the farmers are aware of its importance. One of the reasons I am moving these probing amendments is to drive the importance of this matter home to people outside this Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371DB:
In the proposed paragraph 4, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 2 and insert ("The relevant Minister").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 371DC. These amendments are technical and, I hope, helpful. There seems no reason why the Secretary of State and the Minister should be referred to separately as regards the modest purpose of supplying copies of the proposed orders. However, I am not asking for a similar provision as regards making a decision. These amendments bring paragraph 4 of the schedule into line with the definitions of the relevant Minister for the purpose of NSA orders contained in subsection (9) of the new section. I believe my provision cuts down on bureaucracy and paper. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I always dread a noble Lord talking about a technical amendment because it means that a technical answer is required. The amendment is unnecessary and would raise technical difficulties. However, I must take this opportunity to explain ministerial responsibility for the making of orders as set out in paragraph 9 of the draft clause. The relevant Minister for the purposes of making orders will be the Secretary of State for Wales if the area concerned is wholly in Wales. It will be the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Environment in the case of an area wholly in England, and all three aforementioned Ministers in the case of an area partly in Wales and partly in England. The Government's proposal in paragraph 4 of the schedule is for any of the Ministers joining in making the draft order to be able to provide, on request, a copy of the proposed order.
The effect of my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 371 DB and 371DC would not be to change this position, but a legal doubt would be introduced since the relevant Minister is not defined in paragraph 8 for the purposes of providing copies of the draft order to persons requesting them, I hope that that complicated answer will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I shall not waste the Committee's time on the matter. I am not sure that I am happy, but I think that it would be far better for me to speak to my noble friend between now and

257
Report stage. It is only a technical point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 371DC and 371 DD, as amendments to Amendment No. 371C, not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371C, Amendment No. 371DE:
In the proposed paragraph 6, line 4, leave out ("if he or they consider it appropriate to do so") and insert ("and shall where any objections in writing have been received to the making of an order containing mandatory provisions from an owner, lessee or occupier (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land comprised in the order and which have not been withdrawn").
The noble Lord said: As the schedule stands, Ministers may hold a local inquiry before deciding whether or not to make their proposed orders or to make them with modifications. In other words, even where there is a proposed NSA covering thousands of acres of land affecting substantial numbers of farmers, all of whom might have registered strong objections, there will nonetheless be no obligation on the Minister to call a public inquiry into objections.
I am sorry to keep repeating myself because I know that my noble friend knows this, but these orders may have serious implications for the livelihoods of many farmers. I believe that it is not unreasonable that they should be given some assurance that their objections will be heard by a semi-independent person in the form of a public inquiry inspector. I am not concerned about a proper public inquiry, but I feel that those who are involved should be allowed this.
This option would give farmers far more confidence than merely making objections direct to government departments, where they could be processed by the Minister's own advisers, who report directly to him and have no independence whatsoever. I am sure that they do in practice, but in theory they do not.
This amendment therefore ensures that where orders contain mandatory provisions, if written objections have been made and have not been withdrawn, Ministers will be obliged to hold a local inquiry. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: In the case of one or more objections to a proposed order designating a nitrate sensitive area, the government Amendment 371C would enable the Secretary of State and the Minister to hold a public inquiry before deciding whether or not to make the proposed order, although it would not compel them to do so. My noble friend's Amendment No. 371DE would, however, automatically require such a public inquiry.
An inquiry into the principle of designating the nitrate sensitive area may not always, however, be necessary. For example, the designation order will be subject to negative resolution and will therefore be open to debate in the House. But the overriding reason is that, after the first few cases, some designation proposals may not raise new issues of policy or principles needing examination in public. The Government are, however, willing to give an
258
assurance that every case will be considered on its merits, although our normal policy will be to hold public inquiries whenever a proposal raises new issues of policy not previously examined in public. The Government are, however, willing to give an assurance that every case will be considered on its merits, although our normal policy will be to hold public inquiries whenever a proposal raises new issues of policy not previously examined in public. It is therefore likely that the first few uses of the powers to designate NSAs with compulsory provisions will be subject to inquiry, as well as cases thereafter that raise policy issues.
I hope that the Committee will accept that that is a fair and reasonable proposal, one that will protect special local interests while ensuring that we achieve a streamlined and effective procedure. Once again, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The trouble is that it is a question of assurances. Of course, I take an assurance from my noble friend that she would carry out that proposal, but we are writing in the provision possibly for a large number of years. There might perhaps be a Secretary of State or Minister who would not carry the confidence that my noble friend does. I shall therefore have to think about the matter. I take what my noble friend says and I understand the problem. There might be a middle way here—not a full public inquiry, but some form of inquiry. I am sure that we could think about the matter between now and Report stage and perhaps find a proper form of words.
This is the last of my amendments to the government amendment and I should like to thank the Committee for being so patient with me. I should also like to thank my noble friend for answering our queries so well. I reiterate that I am certainly not against the regulation of NSAs. I am sure, sadly, that it will be necessary, but we must try to get it right. I am sorry to have tabled so many amendments, but the country saw the proposals for the first time only about a week ago and I have had to ask a great many questions. I am sure that we can nail most of them between now and Report stage. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 371C agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Schedule 11 [Consents to certain Discharges]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 372:
Page 222, line 23, leave out ("104") and insert ("105(1)(a)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 373 to 375A.
These are for the most part technical amendments to Schedule 11 which deals with the procedure for the granting of consents for effluent discharges. Amendments Nos. 372, 374, 375 and 375A are intended to secure the proper link between the Bill clauses and the schedule. They simply revise certain references in the schedule to the body of the Bill.
Amendment No. 373 is rather more than a technicality. There are at present on water authority registers large numbers of discharge consents which have not been used for some considerable time. We do not think they should be allowed to stay there. They pre-empt carrying capacity of the river which might otherwise be allowed to other dischargers, and, if brought back into operation, unbeknown to the authority, after a considerable time, they could complicate the authority's proper management and quality control of the rivers.
We believe that, if a discharger does not use his consent for 12 months, it should be open to the authority to revoke it, so long, of course, as it is outside the initial two-year protected period during which no variation or revocation of a consent by the NRA is permissible. A further consideration is that dischargers could avoid legal liability for charges if they claimed that a discharge consent was not used during a 12 month period. They would be unlikely to make a false claim if they knew it put their consent at risk. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 372A:
Page 223, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of sub-paragraph (4) above shall not apply to an application for a consent to discharge effluent which is subject to an existing consent which specifies more stringent conditions.").
The noble Lord said: The rationale of this amendment is that there should be no relaxation of a consent on an existing discharge although we feel that it is quite right and proper that there should be new consent conditions applied for all new discharges.
The rationale of Amendment No. 372B, which follows this amendment, is that it should be the Secretary of State who reviews those consents that he sets, as they will involve many very difficult red list substances. It will be the Secretary of State, through the expertise of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollutants, who will have to deal with these problems and set the terms under which the consent will operate. Such expertise will not be readily available to the authority. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This Committee tonight seems to have cast itself in the part of Elizabeth Bennett, because a dreadful choice is indeed before it. It seems that we have to choose between food and water. I cannot imagine any choice much more fundamental than that.
We on these Benches have listened, perhaps with a little more sympathy than has the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the concerns of the farmers but in the end these Benches give priority to the cleanliness and purity of water. It is the more indispensable of the two substances. Of the two amendments tabled by these Benches, Amendment No. 372A concerns the use which could be made of sub-paragraph (4) on page 223. As I understand it, that is a case of de minimis non curat lex, which is a maxim that in its
260
proper place has good uses. However, we have an uncomfortable feeling that there have been too many "minimi" allowed into the water recently. We think that too much advantage has been taken of that attitude. We believe that there is a considerable need for a rather more stringent view and that, where a particular consent has demanded a more stringent condition, that should not be overridden by the doctrine of de minimis, which may not in fact apply in the case.
Amendment No. 372B concerns the conditions of consents. I take the point made a moment ago by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that if the discharge is changed it may in effect become a different consent that is involved. However, the noble Earl reminds me of the case of Sir John Suckling's silk stockings, which had been darned so many times that none of the original material was left. The question then arose as to whether they were the same silk stockings. It is a question on which philosophers have much exercised themselves.
I do not want to have such a situation arising with perhaps a small change in the mixture which goes into a discharge which may have quite considerable effects before anybody is aware of them. Once again we on these Benches come back to the point that the safety of the water must be paramount. That is why we wish to bring forward these amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: These two amendments refer to two significant features of the arrangements in Schedule 11 for the making of applications and granting of consents for effluent discharges.
Let me deal first with Amendment No. 372A, which would require that the power to waive the requirement to advertise application for discharge consents, unless the discharge in question is held to have no appreciable effect on the receiving water, shall not apply to an application which seeks to vary an existing consent.
We should leave some discretion in this matter. In the first case, what is the justification for distinguishing applications to increase a discharge from applications to make a new one? There really is no relevant logical distinction. The river is not going to make any distinction as to whether some increase in pollution arises from a wholly new or an amended consent.
The only relevant consideration is whether the effect on the receiving water is likely to be appreciable. We have at present clear rules for judging that in the annex to the relevant current circular. The NRA will be able to review and amend these critera as it judges appropriate.
I suggest to the Committee that it would be a total waste of time and money, and of no possible public benefit, to require advertising in cases where the NRA concluded that the revision of the consent had no appreciable effect upon the river.
I recognise, however, that this proposal may be inspired by the reviews currently being undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in respect of sewage treatment works which are part of the major £1 billion improvement programme to non-complaint works scheduled for completion by

261
March 1992. The Goverment have concluded that in view of the public interest in this programme all the applications received under it should in fact be advertised. However, that is absolutely no reason to deny the NRA any discretion in the future as to whether it is appropriate to advertise an application for either a temporary or permanent variation of an existing consent.
I turn now to Amendment No. 372B, which refers to consents given in request of applications which have been "called in". What it proposes is that the Secretary of State should be required to review such consents from time to time thereafter.
I put it to the Committee that the amendment is misconceived for the following procedural and indeed practical reasons. First, as to procedure, where the Secretary of State has called in an application, he will direct the NRA as to the terms of the consent to be given. But the consent is the NRA's consent. These consents will therefore be regularly reviewed under the obligation of the NRA to review all consents it gives. It would be absurd to
262
have both the Secretary of State and the NRA regularly reviewing such consents. Secondly, in practical terms, there is no reason for the Secretary of State's continued involvement in a case he has called in. The issues arising on a review may well be totally different from that which at an earlier time led the Secretary of State to call in the application.
If the Secretary of State were unhappy with the way the NRA carried out its review of a particular consent—if, for instance, it had used its power to overturn his earlier decision—he has full power under paragraph 6(3)(c) of Schedule 11 to direct the authority to vary or revoke the consent.
Lord Addington: I should like to read what the noble Earl has said at some considerable length before deciding whether to bring these amendments back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 372B not moved].
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 373:
Page 226, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) If on a review under sub-paragraph (1) above it appears to the Authority that no discharge has been made in pursuance of the consent to which the review relates at any time during the preceding twelve months, the Authority may revoke the consent by a notice served on the owner or occupier of the land from which discharges would be made in pursuance of the consent.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Before we agree to this group of amendments, I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to certain problems that could arise when we consider that in future the plc and the NRA will be totally separate organisations within the plc operation.
I speak with experience of Anglian Water. There are in existence discharge consents that relate to intermittent discharges. Some of these are, for instance, the kind of discharge that is made only in an emergency. It appears that the amendment will give the NRA power to revoke consents when they are used only intermittently even though that may be the purpose of some of them.
I have reservations about my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps I may give some examples. In the Anglian Water region the outlets from which intermittent discharges are made fall into the following categories: first, emergency outflows from pumping stations; secondly, storm outflows; and, thirdly, some discharges from water treatment works which are made under exceptional circumstances. In the future we may also require consents for washing out mains. That is an interesting procedure which was demonstrated last week to the consumer consultative committee in Norwich. It happens perhaps once every five years but is nonetheless an extremely important form of activity within the successful operations of a water supply undertaking. It is essential for maintenance of a water supply that meets the requirements of the EC, for instance, for colour. There are about 1,800 storm and emergency overflows in Anglian Water's region so that there could be problems if the amendment were to imply that the NRA could withdraw its consents from such overflows.
I wondered whether it would be possible for my noble friend to consider that, instead of referring just to the preceding 12 months, a longer period could be considered, of perhaps two or three years, or some other means for ensuring that these essential but necessarily intermittent discharge consents are not caught in a net.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend raises an interesting problem, but I wonder whether I could draw his attention to the duty that the NRA will have to which it needs to have regard under Clause 7(5), particularly the duties of the water and sewerage operation. I am sure that we can rely on the NRA to be sensible about the type of storm overflows, for example, or the intermittent use of such discharges because they serve a necessary purpose. It would
264
probably be unusual for it to consider that such a use should be turned down. We were trying to catch the dischargers of other materials into the water who were sitting on a discharge consent that would not be used intermittently. This is a subject which I shall want to look into between now and another stage, but I think that we can leave the problem which my noble friend has raised to the good sense of the NRA.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): A debate having arisen, I think that I had better put a single Question in regard to Amendment No. 373.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 374, 375 and 375A:
Page 229, line 4, leave out from ("section") to end of line 5 and insert ("105(1)(a) or (5)(a) or 106 of this Act;").
Page 229, line 8, leave out ("104, 105(5)(a)") and insert ("105(1)(a) or (5)(a)").
Page 229, line 43, leave out ("need to ensure") and insert ("desirability of ensuring").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [By-laws for preventing pollution of controlled waters]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 376:
Page 118, line 10, leave out ("sink").
The noble Earl said: This clause enables the authority to make by-laws, among which is one dealing with sanitary appliances on vessels in controlled waters. Then further down, the same clause defines what are not sanitary appliances:
"In this section 'sanitary appliance', in relation to a vessel, means any appliance … not being a sink, bath or shower bath".
My only intention is to remove "sink" and put it in a class with the sanitary appliances. One hopes that it is in a different class from baths and shower baths, and it is a little closer to the lavatory perhaps. One thing is certain, one can force all sorts of rubbish down a sink. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is worried about coastal waters, as I am. Since this is only an enabling clause, I thought it would be best to get rid of "sink" altogether and make vessels look after sinks if they are required to do so. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I agree that there is merit in the amendment and that it is much more likely that polluting matter would be passed through a sink than a bath or shower outlet.
The Earl of Arran: As presently drafted, Clause 110 only allows the NRA to make such by-laws in respect of lavatories, as my noble friend has just said. Sinks and baths are excluded through the working of subsection (3). The amendment should be rejected. By-laws in respect of sinks and baths would serve no purpose, for it will always be an offence under Clause 104 to discharge polluting matter such as soapy water from a sink or bath into a river or other controlled waters. The by-law-making power must be restricted to lavatories because it is only in respect of lavatories that such by-laws can play a role.

265
As Members of the Committee will recall from our discussion earlier this evening on Clause 105(3), discharges of sewage from vessels do not constitute offences under Clause 104. Hence the need for the power to make by-laws prohibiting such discharges. As there is no provision equivalent to Clause 105(3) in respect of discharges from sinks and baths, there is accordingly no provision for by-laws prohibiting such discharges. In the circumstances, I believe that the objectives of my noble friend are already met.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Radnor: I am a little disappointed with that reply. I have looked back hurriedly at Clause 104. It provides:
"nothing in this subsection shall authorise the giving of such a notice in respect of discharges from a vessel".
It appears from that clause that vessels get away with it. I am not immensely impressed by that remark although I have not had time to reread the whole of Clause 104. However, my impression is that vessels are exonerated and allowed to get away with their discharges.
I am doubly disappointed because this is only an enabling clause and perhaps not of vast importance. I am disappointed that the power will not exist to give more force to the NRA in these sadly neglected coastal waters. However, it is not of that much moment to stop me begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 376ZA:
Page 118, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) Bylaws made under this section shall not extend to any reservoir owned by a water undertaker.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 110 will give the NRA power to make by-laws for preventing pollution of controlled waters. The basic intention behind the clause is to be welcomed. However, controlled waters is defined in Clause 100 of the Bill and that definition includes a water undertaker's reservoir. It appears to be inappropriate that the NRA should have the power to make by-laws which would apply to reservoirs belonging to a water undertaker.
In the by-law-making procedure in Schedule 23 to the Bill there is not even a provision for a notice relating to the proposed by-law to be served on a water undertaker. The amendment proposes that no such by-laws should extend to a reservoir owned by a water undertaker. A water undertaker will have even stronger reasons than the NRA for preventing pollution in its reservoirs. But it seems inappropriate that by-laws made by the NRA extend to a water undertaker's reservoirs. An alternative approach would be for the NRA to be required to consult with and obtain the agreement of a water undertaker before making any such by-law which related to a water undertaker reservoir.
In addition—and I have not tabled this as a separate amendment—should not the NRA consult water undertakers before making by-laws under this clause? A water undertaker would probably wish to see by-laws under the clause made in respect of any
266
waters from which it abstracted water for water supply purposes. It is another example of the provisions in this part of the Bill where clarifications of the borderline of the responsibilities between the NRA and a water undertaker need clarifying.
As regards the point made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook earlier today—it seems a long time ago—about the need for amendment to the definition of "inland waters" in the various parts of the Bill, Amendment No. 376ZA is required. Inland waters as defined includes a water undertaker's reservoir. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend about this matter because no doubt she has studied this part of the Bill in greater depth than I have. However, as someone who lives by a river within spitting distance of a large reservoir, I understood her to suggest that the NRA should not have the same powers over the reservoir as it should over the river. I do not go along with that argument.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 112 gives the NRA the power to make by-laws to regulate certain polluting activities; for instance, washing or cleaning of vessels or other matter and the use of vessels with sanitary appliances, on any controlled waters. This amendment seeks to exempt reservoirs owned by the water undertakers from this control.
It is most unlikely that the NRA would see a need to exercise this power in respect of such waters. But we believe that, as a matter of principle, it should have the power. It has the responsibility for the protection of all controlled waters from pollution. It seems wrong in principle that certain controlled waters should be excluded from these powers merely on account of who the body is that owns the water in question. I accept that the undertakers will be able to make their own by-laws under different powers, but then private owners of controlled waters can also regulate what is done on them.
As a point of principle we do not therefore accept that the scope of the NRA's by-law making powers should be restricted in the way proposed. But I hope the proposers will be comforted by two assurances: first, it is most unlikely the power will be used often, if at all, in the circumstances identified; secondly, such by-laws would need the confirmation of the Secretary of State. They would be unlikely to receive such confirmation if they could be shown to be unnecessary or unreasonable.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am not entirely clear on the two assurances he has given but I should like to study them in detail. As the hour is late, I shall not press my amendment. However, I wish to reserve my right to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: While welcoming the power which the NRA has to make by-laws of this nature, I feel that it is rough justice and that the owner of the reservoir, if a plc, should at least receive the same sort of notice as does a local authority.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Anti-pollution works and operations]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 376A:
Page 118, line 46, after "waters" insert ("provided that where works are carried out to put a mine back into operation this subsection shall not apply.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say that I have some difficulty in moving this amendment because I had to compare my past commitment to the mining industry with my present commitment to the environment, and the environment won. I am suggesting here that when a mine is put back into operation, any effect created by the discharge of the polluted waters should be the responsibility of those who bring the mine back into operation. I feel that this is probably a fair amendment and I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The control of discharges from abandoned mines is a matter of great legal and technical difficulty. Not only is it often very difficult to identify the cause of the discharge; it is frequently uncertain where any legal liability may rest. For these reasons it has not seemed appropriate to allow the NRA to recover the costs of operations it may undertake to remedy or prevent such discharge from persons, most probably the landowners at the discharge point, who have not caused the discharge to occur but simply permitted it in the sense of not themselves taking steps to stop it.
This amendment asks us to remove from this exemption the case where the mineworkings are being brought back into operation. We agree that the exemption should not cover these cases. However, the clause as drafted does not in fact exempt them. On the ordinary meaning of the words, when works are begun to bring a mine back into operation it must cease to be abandoned. At that point the exemption therefore ceases also.
In the light of this explanation, and since the objective is already achieved by the Bill, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.
Lord Ezra: I quite agree and, in the light of that explanation, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 112 [Codes of good agricultural practice]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 376B:
Page 119, line 3, after ("Ministers") insert ("or by the Authority").
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 112 the Minister may give practical advice to farmers. I propose that so, too, should the National Rivers Authority. It may be that this power is contained somewhere else in the Bill, but I cannot find it. Possibly the Minister will say that this can be done by ADAS. If so, I shall have to take issue with him, as to give advice on farm pollution, and in particular to foresee possible problems, is a specialised job.
That was certainly the case with the South-West Water Authority, which helped to improve conditions in a situation that was not good and, indeed, extremely difficult to solve. It was found that ADAS was not equipped to carry out this work and it fell to the water authority to give the necessary advice.
I also make a plea that prosecutions should not be instituted by the authority if it is called in to advise, unless of course the farmer refuses to take that advice. Unless that is the case, farmers will be reluctant to call in pollution officers. Indeed, I think I would be somewhat fearful to do so myself. Certainly that has always been the principle with ADAS and the safety inspectors. I suggest that it is similar to the advice that all citizens can obtain free from police crime prevention officers.
Giving advice—and it should be free—is an essential part of cleaning up our pollution. I am sure that prevention must be better than cure. Apart from giving advice, I believe that it would be beneficial if the NRA could be empowered to draw up, with the industry, codes of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should like to add a few words in support of this amendment. It is probably not an enormously significant amendment but it should not be lost sight of.
I happened to go to a big demonstration on the disposal of farm effluents that is from time to time run at the Royal Show, on the Royal Show ground—known this year as Muck '89. The weather was most appalling and the demonstration was carried out under the greatest difficulty. However, I was very much impressed by the part run by Severn-Trent Water Authority—it was the best and most organised part. We need to ensure that that work goes on because the advice is tremendously valuable. It will need to be funded and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will keep a close eye on just that.
Baroness Trumpington: The present wording of Clause 112(1) already allows Ministers to approve by order a code of practice prepared by the NRA. Clause 112(1) refers to "another person" making a code. Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 defines a person as,
"includes a body of persons corporate".
Page 2 of the Water Bill states that the NRA is a "body corporate". To summarise, this amendment is unnecessary and would raise a legal doubt where none presently exists.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I believe that was a very satisfactory answer. Unless my noble friend says something different, as I understand it the National Rivers Authority will be able to give this advice. She did not say whether it will be free or whether on the first visit prosecutions, I will not say will be forbidden, but will be looked on kindly as something not to do. I do not know whether she feels inclined to volunteer that information. I do not believe she does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Registers for the purposes of Chapter 1]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 376C:
Page 119, line 42, after ("Chapter") insert—
("( ) information as to samples that have been taken in pursuance of section 114;").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and which should be taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 376D. The purpose of these amendments is to allow evidence to be obtained for the bringing of prosecutions against polluters. While an individual has the power to prosecute he has no power to enter onto land and take samples. Thus in most cases the ability to bring a private prosecution is made redundant. The amendments require that if a routine sample reveals a possible breach of a consent condition; namely, by discharging effluent with more than the permitted amount of a substance in it, that sample must be entered on the pollution register.
The new subsection (4) is to provide for the situation where a certificate has been issued by the Secretary of State to protect trade secrets. In such a case it may be that just the fact of a breach and the subsequent taking of samples under subsection (2) should be entered on the register. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I give my strong support to these amendments. At Second Reading I supported what the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said about sampling and the private rights of prosecution. I believe that he was speaking then largely on behalf of the Anglers' Co-operative Association which has played a notable part over the years in supporting riparian owners to use their common law rights to have unpolluted water passing by. Long before most of the rest of us were really concerned with pollution, the ACA was fighting very successfully to prevent the pollution of a number of our rivers. Its firm view is that if the Government are endorsing the principle of private prosecutions, which I believe they are, they must give the general public the opportunity to have available proper evidence on which to base such prosecutions. That means that there must be formal samples on the public register. Without such samples prosecutions cannot be brought.
The wording of Clause 143 makes it clear that evidence cannot be brought of an offence under the Bill unless the sample is taken formally. So unless a regime of formal sampling is undertaken, such prosecutions are likely to fail. I believe that would be disastrous. I believe that the position is fully covered by the amendments proposed by the noble Lord and I hope very much that the Government will accept them.
Lord Hylton: I do not know whether this is the right moment to raise the question of sampling errors. If only one sample is taken it appears that there is a grave possibility of error. I noticed that in Amendment No. 376D subsection (2) refers to "the next five occasions". I should have thought that that gave scope for averaging and getting true readings
270
which appear to be very necessary. A great deal of alarmism and false alarms may be occasioned if proceedings are started simply on the basis of a single sample. Whether the Government Front Bench or the mover of the amendments can throw any light on these matters I do not know, but at some stage I believe that we shall have to pay attention to this point.
The Earl of Balfour: Does not Clause 144 cover the giving of three samples?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It seems that Clause 144 imposes a new, rather strict, regime of what is called tripartite sampling, which would tend to make it more difficult for groups like the Anglers Co-operative Association to bring prosecutions. After all, the more simple sampling on the basis of results kept on the public registers which are based on samples taken by the water authorities at their own sewage treatment works, but which have not been through the tripartite process, have been accepted as the basis of prosecution. If we are to accept the more rigid proposals made in these clauses we would make it more difficult for those who would wish to bring prosecutions against the water companies. I support the amendment, and I also support Amendment No. 393A which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has put down on virtually the same point.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 376C and 376D concern Clause 113. The clause is the successor to Section 41 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 under which the water authorities have kept public registers containing details of river quality sampling, effluent discharge consents and the samples taken of effluent discharges. Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 376C. Its effect is to specify that among the information included on public registers should be information produced as a result of samples taken under Clause 144.
Clause 144 provides a special procedure for the NRA to take what have been called formal or tripartite samples; that is, samples subject to certain special procedures which are necessary for their admissibility in court proceedings. These procedures, which are paralleled in many other areas where sample evidence is to be relied on in criminal proceedings, include the division of the sample into three parts, the use of sealed containers and the passing of one part of the sample to the discharger and the retention of a third part for independent competitive analysis if required. These procedures are important. They help to ensure fairness and probity and assist a court in assessing evidence before it.
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that such samples are included in the public register. They already will be. They are already included in Clause 113(1)(e)(i) as samples taken by the NRA for the purpose of this chapter. That category includes both these formal samples and routine samples taken by the NRA for ordinary monitoring purposes. The concern of the proposers is a proper one. The sample

271
results recorded on public registers will be admissible in criminal prosecutions for pollution brought not only by the NRA but also those which may be brought by third parties; but only for as far as the samples were taken on the formal tripartite basis. In these circumstances, it is therefore important that anyone consulting the public register should be able to identify which samples were taken on a tripartite basis.
We are providing for this in the regulations which we shall in due course be laying before Parliament under Clause 113. These will require the NRA clearly to distinguish on the register which samples were taken on a tripartite basis and which were not. I believe that this fully achieves the objectives of the proposers. We are not only preserving the right of private prosecution but we are ensuring that there is through the public register access to evidence to support such prosecutions when appropriate. We are making it incumbent on the NRA to indicate clearly what that evidence is. I suggest therefore that this amendment is unnecessary.
I turn now to Amendment No. 376D whose central purpose is to set down on the face of the Bill the circumstances in which the NRA is to take formal tripartite samples of effluents; that is, samples which follow the procedures set out in Clause 144 which make them admissible as evidence in court. The amendment proposes that the NRA be required to take such samples on the next five occasions after a sample has appeared to breach the conditions of an effluent discharge consent.
The Government have some sympathy for the purposes of this amendment. It will be essential for the NRA to take sufficient formal samples to enable it to discharge its responsibility for the effective enforcement of the pollution control legislation.
Moreover, given that we are to maintain—as the Government believe we should—a right for third parties to bring prosecutions for pollution offences, it is important that enough formal samples should be taken to provide a firm basis for exercise of that right. This is necessary because third parties—such as angling clubs, parish councils and indeed private individuals—will find it difficult to collect reliable samples because, unlike the NRA, they will not of course have a right of access to a discharger's land for this purpose. Adequate tripartite sampling is particularly important in cases where the consent is expressed in terms of a percentile compliance level over a series of samples.
If the NRA is to discharge its statutory functions it will be incumbent upon it to take formal samples in appropriate circumstances. That will be essential if it is to do its job of enforcing the legislation. The NRAAC recognises this. Moreover, if the NRA were in the future ever to reduce its formal sampling to inappropriate levels, the Secretary of State could use his direction power to override it.
I suggest that that is the appropriate position. What we believe would not be satisfactory would be to do as this amendment requires and take away from the NRA all flexibility as to when formal samples are appropriate. It should be left to judge the
272
circumstances of particular cases. Tripartite samples are more costly to take. The NRA should not be required by the legislation to take a series of five such samples in circumstances when it does not consider it appropriate: for instance, if it believes that a particular infringement was the chance result of a freak occurrence; or if it concludes that an infringement is so marginal as not to be significant; or if it is satisfied that a discharger is taking all possible steps to bring a discharge back into compliance.
We really should not put the NRA in a straitjacket here. If we do so the NRA will waste resources and we shall also undermine the authority's role. The judgment as to when the results from the monitoring of a discharge indicate a level of performance which justifies the extra expense and effort of tripartite sampling is, fundamentally, one for the NRA to take. Given the duties we are placing on the authority, and the strong leadership which it will have, I believe we can safely leave it to exercise its judgment on this particular facet.
On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I am indebted to the noble Lord for the very full reply which we have received. I am also very pleased that he expressed sympathy with the purpose of the amendment. As I understand his explanation, he said that the powers of the NRA are sufficiently flexible to take account of what is proposed here, and that individuals will be fully protected where questions of prosecution may arise.
In the light of those explanations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 376D not moved.]
Clauses 114 to 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 377:
Page 122, line 20, at end insert—
(" "vessel" includes all ships of any description but does not include floating cages for the retention of cultured fish.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with fish farming and cage farming of salmon. I must declare a strong interest in this respect, as I am an inland fish farmer and therefore in direct competition with the salmon farmers who have their cages off our coasts.
In Clause 120 it is made quite clear that trade effluent includes effluent from agriculture and from fish farms. On the face of it, that sounds straightforward. However, we must go back to Clause 104 once more, where vessels, contrary to what my noble friend Lord Arran said, are taken clean out of any description with regard to pollution. I can therefore see a situation arising in the courts where a cage farm, which after all is a floating structure

273
out at sea, might in effect say, "I am a vessel and therefore you cannot touch me". It might be said that there is no true effluent because the water merely swirls in and out. Vessels are not caught by Clause 104. Fish farming appears to be adequately dealt with under Clause 120, but a fish farm might claim to be a vessel and there might be a problem, which is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I can, I believe, offer my noble friend reassurance on the grounds that the amendment is not necessary.
First, while matters of construction are ultimately for the courts, it is not our intention that floating fish cages should be construed as vessels, nor do we believe it likely. "Vessel" does not include everything that floats, and it has been held specifically not to include rafts, light, shallow rowing boats or landing stages or pontoons. In any case, if any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter were to emanate from such a cage and cause pollution, it would still be the subject of an offence under Clause 102(1)(a).
Our conclusion is that those who farm fish by floating fish cages are not free from proper regulation, nor are they in any more advantageous position than those who farm fish in other ways. However, I have to confess that those are questions of some complexity. We believe the position to be secure but if, in the light of continuing consideration, we conclude that there is any problem, we will ask the leave of this place to make an appropriate technical amendment on Report or Third Reading.
With those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I do not intend to press the amendment. I am more or less reassured by my noble friend's remarks and by the fact that a fish cage may be regarded as a pontoon or something of that type and not as a vessel. I note that he acknowledges that the question is tricky. I shall be interested to see whether any alteration is made. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [General functions in relation to water resources]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 377ZA:
Page 122, line 44, after ("water") insert ("and land").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 377ZB, 377B and 377C are grouped with this amendment. The four amendments depend upon one another. My noble friend Lord Onslow is associated with them. Their combined effect would be to ensure that under Clauses 121 and 122 the NRA would have a duty to conserve and secure the proper use, not only of water resources but of the land resources of water undertakers, and to further conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation
274
of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features of special interest.
Nonetheless, I must declare that this is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to find out from the Government why there is a difference between what is the duty of the NRA under Clauses 121 and 122, to which we have now come, and the duty placed upon them under Clause 8(4).
It may be that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that, as the two clauses have to be read together, we do not need to spell it out so much as is suggested in the amendment in Clauses 121 and 122, which are in the chapter headed simply "Water Resources". We have to bear in mind that in Clause 8(4) there is a reference to:
"the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland waters and of land associated with such waters".
Under the interpretation of statutes, when different expressions are used in a statute they are expected to have different meanings and consequences. Therefore, we have to be careful that in legislating differently in Clauses 121 and 122 we are not, perhaps artificially, making a distinction which we do not intend.
I do not think I need elaborate this very much, except just to mention that the matter is of some practical importance because, as I pointed out earlier when we were discussing Clause 7, the water undertakings, assuming that they inherit all the lands occupied by the water authorities, will have between them about half a million acres. I wrongly described them then as being the largest public and private landowners in the country. That was wrong. I had stupidly forgotten about the Forestry Commission, which has 3 million acres. However, half a million acres is quite a lot, and there should be a clear responsibility with regard to the conservation and protection of the environment within those half a million acres.
I do not think I need elaborate this, but it is a matter of sufficient importance for us to try to get it right. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I put my name to this amendment and I do not think I need add a great deal to what my noble friend has said. I am not a lawyer but it strikes me that there should not be different wordings in Clause 121:

"(a) of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in England and Wales; and

(b) of securing the proper use of water resources in England and Wales",

whereas Clause 8(4)(a) says:
"the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland waters and of land associated with such waters".
I should have thought that those two clauses should say exactly the same thing. I am not totally convinced that Clause 121 is even necessary, Clause 8 being there and saying what it does. If there are two clauses of an Act saying slightly different things which are supposed to mean the same thing, I should have thought that all that will happen is that Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne will get even richer than they are at the moment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie: Before the Minister stands up, I should like to say that I fully support these amendments tabled by my noble friends. There can surely be no logical justification for excluding conservation duties from the remit of the NRA's powers, since the present water authorities already have strict conservation duties. Regulation of the conservation duties should be passed to the NRA in line with the other regulatory functions regarding water quality and resources.
My noble friend the Minister has already said that he will bring forward amendments to give added protection regarding the disposal and sale of sites of special conservation and amenity value; for example, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. But as I have been trying to point out, this does not deal with the wider issue.
It must be remembered that not all land of conservation value is necessarily designated as such—in fact, far from it. Such designations cover only about one-third of water authority land holdings, about 150,000 acres, leaving two-thirds, about 300,000 acres, stripped of the protection currently afforded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
It cannot be argued that these duties will continue unchanged in the Bill as it now stands, since the conservation duties of the water companies will be subject to the Clause 7 duties of providing reasonable returns on investment, creating far weaker protection than currently prevails. Nor can I accept the argument that conservation is the sole responsibility of the Nature Conservancy Council. That ignores the limited remit of the NCC in addition to the evidence that the status of sites of special scientific interest is far from being a panacea in terms of protection.
I regret that there are numerous examples of where development has been allowed to go ahead and has damaged the conservation value of the site. The Wisley Commons complex, adjacent to the Royal Horticultural Society gardens, is one such example, bisected by the A3(T) and M25 motorways, causing severe fragmentation and isolation of woodland units.
I can give the Committee several examples as regards the Thames Water Authority of land without designation which is nevertheless of conservation interest. To take the Barn Elms reservoir which is currently an SSSI, it may well be denotified because of declining wildfowl interest; in other words, it is no longer considered as being of national importance. This is a good example of how finely balanced the division is between designation and non-designation. A site that is protected by SSSI designation one day, may no longer be the next if it is denotified.
Furthermore, if development has already damaged an SSSI, its ability to "defend" its status is severely reduced and it is therefore liable to be denotified. This is an example of a site that may well have no designation protection in the near future and may therefore be at risk because of the limited protection
276
afforded by the Bill. Even though no longer of national importance, it is a site which is still of considerable local value and its loss would certainly represent a severe depletion of the natural countryside resource.
The Hornsey reservoir, near Alexandra Park, while recognised as being important nationally for uncommon caddis and dragon flies, has no statutory designation. It is therefore an example of important conservation land owned by a water authority that lacks any protection other than the strategic responsibilities of the water authorities for conservation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The overriding responsibility of the water companies to produce reasonable returns on investment represents considerable weakening of the current protection.
I will give noble Lords just two more examples. The Kempton Park/Staines Hill East and West reservoirs are important for breeding birds of the reed bed and marshes, for passage birds and for wintering wildfowl. They are currently under consideration for SSSI notification, but are typical of important sites which, at a particular point in time, have no statutory designation and are therefore vulnerable to development or disposal of land.
Finally, the Stoke Newington reservoirs, which have been mentioned so many times, have no statutory designation but are recognised as being of local conservation interest. They will be therefore vulnerable to loss of protection afforded by the current water authorities' responsibilities.
Unless the NRA is given the strategic responsibility for conservation that the water authorities currently have, much of the land transferred to the water companies will have less protection than now. It is a logical consequence of the separation of powers between the NRA and the plcs that the NRA should be given strategic conservation duties. That is the express purpose of these amendments. I very much hope that my noble friend will consider them carefully.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, I should say that Clause 121(1 )(b) places a duty on the NRA to make proper use of water resources. It appears that this amendment refers to the proper use of land resources. It also appears to place a general duty on the NRA to secure the proper use of land not in its ownership. I would welcome some comment on that when the Minister replies.
Lord Hylton: Clause 121 seems to be a very important one. It refers to:
"redistributing … water resources in England and Wales".
I take it that could involve the transfer, pumping or moving by some means or other of water from one river system and catchment area into another. That is a very delicate matter which I believe has given rise to quite considerable problems in other countries. It may sometimes be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

277
As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the clause continues by mentioning:
"securing the proper use of water resources".
I believe that phrase is left pretty well hanging in the air without any further explanation or criteria by which it is to be determined. I should have thought there may be as many opinions about proper use of water resources as there are persons applying their minds to the question. It would be very helpful if the noble Earl could throw some further light on the real meaning of these phrases. I apologise for not having given him previous notice of this question. If the Minister cannot reply to that point now on this amendment, perhaps he can say something on the clause stand part debate.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for explaining the intention behind the amendments, as I must confess when I read them they seemed to have two alternative meanings. Now I am clear that the intention behind them is to make it clear, in the context of conservation, that the phrase "water resources" is to be taken as including associated land. However, I remind my noble friend—he does not need reminding, because he mentioned this fact—that that duty is placed on the NRA by Clause 8(4). I draw that clause to the attention of the Committee. It makes it very clear that it is a duty on the NRA to promote conservation with respect both to inland waters, and to the land associated with them. I was therefore quite surprised by what my noble friend Lord Norrie said, because he appeared completely to have ignored this important duty which was the subject of considerable discussion at an earlier stage in our Committee proceedings.
Similarly, as regards the other amendments which my noble friend has put before the Committee, I think his concern will be satisfied by the Clause 8(4) duty. I think it imposes precisely the right kind of conservation duty with respect to inland waterways, and that with respect the amendment of my noble friend gets the balance wrong by giving such duties equal weight with the main water resource functions of the NRA. Conservation must be an adjunct to the primary functions of the NRA, albeit a very important one. It is therefore essential to include, as Clause 8(4) does, the words,
"to such extent as it considers desirable",
rather than to make the promotion of conservation an absolute duty.
My noble friend Lord Onslow wondered why the wording in Clause 121 was different to that of Clause 8(4). Clause 121 is concerned with the NRA's water resources function for which the wording in the Bill is appropriate, whereas Clause 8(4) is concerned with the general conservation duties of the NRA. That explains why there is different wording.
Lord Renton: I could offer another explanation of all this. It is an explanation also why this Bill is nearly 400 pages long. I think that if he were to inquire, although he would never be able to reveal the result of his inquiries, my noble friend would
278
find that the part of the Bill in which Clauses 121 and 122 are contained were the subject of instructions from different officials in his department from those who advised on Clause 8, and that almost certainly different parliamentary counsel were involved in carrying out the instructions of those officials. Therefore we are in the ridiculous position of having pages and pages of clauses in this Bill, many of which overlap to a greater or lesser extent.
There really must be some better system of government than to land us with this sort of thing. There is nobody keener than I am on the principles of this Bill, but I must confess that the way in which the detail has been compiled frightens me.
However, I am grateful to my noble friend for the explanation that he gave, such as he understands it. With those perhaps not adequately generous remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 377B:
Page 122, line 45, at end insert ("and

(c) of furthering the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest.").

The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may raise a small point in connection with Amendment No. 377ZB. It arises out of the reply by my noble friend to the previous amendment. Can he consider again the advice of the two sources of parliamentary counsel? I suspect that my noble friend Lord Renton is 100 per cent. right in that point; it is a subject he knows a great deal about. It is unclear to the general public why the two clauses should say different things. There is no reason why, even if they refer to general conservation duties or water resources duties, the sections covering those duties should not read the same. It would be much clearer from everyone's point of view. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for raising that point. I think that I should point out that this is the only reference, so far as I know, in the Bill or in the amendments, to the:
"conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features",
whereas in the Electricity Bill, which is much shorter although long enough, we do have these matters specifically mentioned. There is no such mention in this Bill, and I think that it would be relevant in connection either with Clause 8 or with Clause 121.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend Lord Onslow said that he was 100 per cent. certain that my noble friend Lord Renton was right when he said that different parliamentary counsel had dealt with different parts of the Bill. I very nearly took a bet with my noble friend but he was engaged in something else at the time and I could not attract his attention. He would have lost that bet. There was one parliamentary counsel involved throughout.

279
I am very happy to draw to the attention of our advisers the points that my noble friends have made in respect of these clauses.
The Earl of Onslow: All I wish to do is to thank my noble friend very much and say that I shall buy him a drink afterwards for being wrong—but not if he stays all night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 377A:
Page 122, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) In discharging its obligations under this section the Authority shall as soon as practicable and thereafter at intervals of not more than five years—

(a) carry out a survey of water resources and of existing demands on the part of water undertakers and other persons and prepare a report setting out the results of the survey;

(b) prepare estimates of the future demand on the part of water undertakers and other persons, for supply of water from those resources during the period of twenty years from the date on which the survey is completed;

(c) formulate proposals as to action which might be taken to remedy any deficiency in resources which may reasonably be expected; and

(d) provide a copy of the report of the results of the survey and any proposals as to action which might be taken to—

(i) the Secretary of State;

(ii) all water undertakers in England and Wales; and

(iii) any other person who specifically requests a copy.").

The noble Earl said: Notwithstanding that we may be invited to assume that prudent planning will be indulged in by the undertakers by virtue of Clause 37, or by the authority by virtue of Clause 121 and the subsequent clause, Clause 122, this amendment seeks to ensure that water resource planning is undertaken effectively and is seen to be so undertaken.
In previous legislation, such as the Water Resources Act 1963, that important function of planning future water resources was clearly spelt out. In this Bill, while the overall responsibility for water resources is placed with the National Rivers Authority, it lacks definition and is uncertain in respect of that important function. It is essential in the interests of industry and the public alike that that vital water resource planning should be undertaken by a public body which can take a long-term view unbiased by private interests.
This amendment seeks to charge the National Rivers Authority with a clear responsibility for carrying out at regular intervals a survey of water resources and existing demands, the preparation of estimates of future demand and the formulation of proposals to remedy expected deficiencies. Furthermore, the water undertakers should be required to assist the authority by providing their own demand forecasts, the data and assumptions on which they are based and their plans to remedy any expected deficiencies. Finally, they are to submit the results of this—their homework—to show that they have done it.
All that is clearly spelt out beyond peradventure and not reliant on assumption or presumption from vague generalities in other clauses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: This amendment would place the NRA under a duty to engage in a five-yearly cycle of activities consisting of surveying water resources and demands on them, forecasting future demands, and, crucially, proposing what action should be taken to meet any foreseen shortfall in resources. I emphasise that point. The last element is the central element because it would clearly put the NRA in the driving seat in respect of matters where subsection (2) of Clause 121 quite deliberately leaves the major responsibility with the water companies.
It is of course true that subsection (1) imposes on the NRA a general duty of oversight of water resources and their proper use, but by virtue of subsection (2) the prime water supply role will rest firmly with the plcs. The NRA will have a vital role to play in ensuring that abstraction licences are consistent with the proper use of inland waters, including the need to ensure that river levels are acceptable, whether or not formal minimum acceptable flows are set. But it will be the task of the plcs, overseen by the Director General of Water Services, to ensure that their forward planning of investment is sufficient to ensure the continued carrying out of their duty to supply water.
The director will monitor the performance of the water undertakers under a condition in their appointments. It is intended that that monitoring will include information on the availability of water resources. If he is not convinced that the plans of the water authorities are adequate, he will have ample powers to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to remedy the situation. He will, for example, be able to require the undertakers to set targets to improve the reliability of their water resources or to apply to the Secretary of State to impose requirements under Clause 38(1) which could be enforced under Clause 20 as a breach of the undertakers' general water supply duty in Clause 37.
I have to admit that the director general's role is not immediately apparent from the Bill itself. That is for the very good reason that it is in the conditions of appointment that the companies' duty to supply forward estimates is contained. In other words, the essential objective which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, seeks to achieve in this amendment is, I believe, already effectively met by a different route.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the noble Earl for his response. It appears that the provisions that I was hoping to achieve are in fact deeply covered beneath a bushel elsewhere in the Bill—very deeply covered. But I thank him for the assurance that they are there, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 377B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 121 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may repeat my invitation to the Minister to comment on the wording of Clause 121, particularly those parts of it which I mentioned on the earlier amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I had hoped that what I said to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, covered the answers that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wanted. When speaking on that amendment I meant to draw to the noble Lord's notice exactly what I was saying because I thought that it covered the very point which concerned him. If it does not I shall be happy to discuss it with the noble Lord between now and another stage to make sure that he is happy.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Water resources management schemes]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 377C:
Page 123, line 13, at end insert ("and

(c) any land which belongs to, or is under the control of, water undertakers for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of their functions.").

The noble Lord said: There is no need for me to speak to this amendment but I think that my noble friend may wish me to move it because he may have something to say about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment, which was linked and grouped with Amendment No. 377ZA.
With the Committee's permission, perhaps I may take the opportunity to make one further comment on Amendment No. 377ZB which my noble friend was concerned about because of the physiographical features of special interest which, he said, he could not find in the Bill. I thought they were in the Bill, although I could not contradict my noble friend at the time. I have now found them. It is Clause 8(1)(a). I think the wording is almost identical with that in my noble friend's amendment except that what we say in the Bill starts towards the end of subsection 1(a):
"as to further the conservation",
whereas my noble friend says:
"of furthering the conservation".
So it ties in with the point that he raised and I hope that it will satisfy him as it is the same wording as in the Electricity Bill.
Lord Renton: For my part I am grateful to my noble friend. In a Bill of nearly 400 pages we can both be excused for not noting every phrase that is in it. But now he has put it right in the record and my anxiety is relieved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 378 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Minimum acceptable river flows]:
[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 3 79A:
Page 124, line 2, after ("State") insert ("either in consequence of representations made to him or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: I shall say a few words in a moment about the general problem of abstraction and minimum acceptable flows when I move Amendment No. 385. This amendment has a very simple aim, which is to allow the public, if it is worried about the flow in a particular river, to ask the Secretary of State to direct the National Rivers Authority to review the minimum acceptable flow of that river.
There is nothing in the Bill which says that minimum acceptable flows are to be established, and if people are worried about a river I think that they ought to have some opportunity of putting their concerns to the Government. That is the object of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson-Watt: This is an important amendment. I should like to support it. The question of minimum acceptable flow is a very important matter to the general public, and in particular to the riparian owners. It affects in particular an area where there is compensation water let out by a reservoir on an agreed statutory provision. Perhaps my noble friend could later given me an assurance that the plcs, when they take over the water, will have the same responsibility for the compensation water that the present water authorities have.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, says, this amendment gives the opportunity for somebody to write direct to the Secretary of State when he is worried about the level of the river. That is the point. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness David: I should like to support the amendment. I have my name to other amendments dealing with acceptable flow. Moreover, perhaps I should nail my colours to the mast now. It is the first amendment to deal with that issue. There is a precedent in the water legislation of 1963. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I can well understand the concern of Members on all sides of the Committee on Amendment No. 379A. However, I am happy to assure them that the clause as drafted already achieves what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to achieve in the amendment. It is implicit in the provision that the Secretary of State may act in this respect either on his own initiative or in response to representations that he receives. I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friend's door will always be open to those who wish to suggest a minimal acceptable flow for any particular inland water.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful for that assurance. In the light of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 380 to 382 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 3 82A:
Page 124, line 40, at end insert ("and shall do so for every river for which a water quality objective is established.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment. The aim is to ensure that a minimum flow is set and enforced for all water for which a water quality objective is established. Water quality objectives and minimum flows ought clearly to be linked. If levels are set for one, it seems to me that a corresponding level should be set for the other.
The maintenance of thriving fisheries and the ecology of the waters in which they are situated are dependent on adequate flows and water quality. This amendment seeks to ensure that the National Rivers Authority has the necessary power to make use of it. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: First, with the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may add to what I have said on the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt and I should have answered him then. I can give my noble friend the assurance that he seeks.
On Amendment No. 382A, it is intended that water quality objectives will be set for all significant rivers in England and Wales. While clearly the flow of water in those rivers will be important in dilution terms and will play a part in achieving quality objectives, these are not the only considerations and it does not necessarily follow that minimum acceptable flows should be determined for all such rivers. The purpose of minimum acceptable river flows is rather different. It is to provide a formal means for public health to be safeguarded, for the requirements of all lawful uses made of the water to be met, and for the needs of land drainage, navigation and fisheries to be protected. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will be particularly pleased about the last part of the sentence.
The Bill does not attempt to specify specific circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a minimum acceptable flow to be determined. Rather it gives the NRA the degree of flexibility it needs to concentrate on those stretches where there are real problems and generally decide what its priorities for action should be. However, in determining flows the NRA is required to have regard to any water quality objectives set. The Secretary of State will additionally have a new power to instigate the setting of minimum acceptable flow in individual instances where he feels it appropriate, perhaps following representations from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, himself.
I believe the approach to determining minimum acceptable flows adopted in the Bill is the right one. It provides the NRA with the discretion it needs in deciding priorities while ensuring water quality objectives are taken into account.
Lord Moran: I should like to study in Hansard what the noble Earl has just said. I am grateful to him for what he said and glad that water quality objectives will be established for all significant rivers. The position is obviously more complicated about minimum flows and I wish to study the Minister's remarks, take them away and see whether
284
I need to say any more at a subsequent stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 383 and 384 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 385:
Page 125, line 9, at end insert—
("(8) In pursuance of the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above the Authority may, and shall, if so directed by the Secretary of State—

(a) withdraw an abstraction licence in respect of which no abstraction has been made in the previous 5 years;

(b) vary an abstraction licence by reducing the licensed quantity to an amount not exceeding the maximum amount abstracted during the previous 5 years;

(c) revoke an existing abstraction licence;

(d) in granting a new abstraction licence, impose conditions as to the level of charge which must be paid by the abstractor having regard to the likely cost to the Authority of maintaining a minimum acceptable flow in any watercourse affected by the abstraction;

(e) introduce a scheme of differential charging for abstractions whereby higher charges may be made for abstractions within river basins for which a minimum acceptable flow has been determined.").

The noble Lord said: This is the main amendment among those I am moving, dealing with over-abstraction from rivers and with minimum acceptable flows. The Nature Conservancy Council said some time ago:
"Over-abstraction from rivers and groundwater is affecting wildlife habitats, such as chalk streams and fens. We have recommended that all abstractions are brought under the control of the National Rivers Authority and reviewed periodically."
I know that on my own river, the Wye, which is now at the dead low summer level, there has been no substantial rain to speak of since March. But 12 to 14 per cent. of the flow is being taken out of the river now at Redbrook. Many rivers are in a much worse state. The Nature Conservancy Council has pointed out that the majority of abstractions creating environmental problems have licences of right issued before the 1963 Water Resources Act. That means that they cannot be altered, except at the request of the abstractor. As a result, a large number of rivers are suffering from low flows and fens and marshes are drying out.
The NCC has produced a number of examples and I shall not go into them all now, but will give just one example, of the river Misbourne in Buckinghamshire. It is one of six rivers suffering from over-abstraction and was the subject of a report by Halcrow to Thames Water in April 1988. The NCC says:
"The abstraction of groundwater by Thames Water and Rickmansworth Water Company has had a deleterious effect on this river, which is largely dependent on spring flows from the chalk. The perennial head has moved downstream by about five kilometres to Little Missenden, leaving the lakes at Great Missenden Abbey Park dry most of the time. Flows in the perennial stretch down to Chalfont St. Giles are much reduced."
That can be repeated for very many rivers in this country. The water authorities have told the NCC that they cannot take action on licences of right.
The Royal Society for Nature Conservation is also worried about the situation and recognises the threat that over-abstraction and resultant low flows

285
represent to sensitive river and wetland habitats. It has examples of the damage caused from several of its associated wildlife trusts.
The essence of the problem is that Clause 123 replaces Section 19 of the Water Resources Act. That Act placed an obligation on river authorities and in turn on water authorities to consider whether inland waters should be subject to minimum acceptable flow determinations and to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for prescribing minimum acceptable flows for those waters considered suitable for such treatment.
That was 26 years ago. How many submissions were made to the Secretary of State? There was none in 26 years. Perhaps that is not surprising because the main abstractions that were causing the damage were being made by the water authorities. For that reason I believe that it is most important to include a provision in this part of the Bill which makes the arrangement much more effective. Further, the NRA should be required to prescribe minimum flows in all significant watercourses. Of course that cannot apply to all because some are winterbournes which dry up naturally.
It is important that all abstractions should be reviewed. I hope I have covered that suggestion in Amendment No. 386A, which I shall move subsequently. It is also important that licences which are not used should be withdrawn. One of the problems has been that many existing licences are underused. For example, in the Northumbrian Water Authority area only 9 per cent. have been taken up. The largest number is in Severn Trent area, with 62 per cent. In the Thames area it is only 25 per cent. So a large number have not been taken up.
Perhaps the NRA could start by modifying existing licences in order to reduce the permitted quantity to a figure no higher than the amount abstracted under that licence during the preceding five years. It is difficult to put such a policy into an amendment but that which I now move is an effort to do so.
I was in correspondence about the matter with Mr. Moynihan earlier this year. He wrote to me on 30th January stating:
"As far as over-abstraction is concerned, we recognise that there is concern about reduced flows, which is sometimes attributed to over-abstraction, particularly from ground waters in chalk areas … As you will know, the Water and Sewerage Law Review recommended that all large-scale continuous abstractions should be brought within the system and that the current categories of exemption should be removed. This rationalisation will allow the NRA to improve the management of resources and help to prevent future over-abstraction".
I was very encouraged by that comment and I should like to ask the Minister whether that will occur. Mr. Moynihan continued:
"In dealing with applications for abstraction licences the NRA will have regard to the requirements of existing abstractors and the need to maintain minimum acceptable flows… These considerations include the current flow, the general environmental duties in Clause 7 as well as river quality objectives".
I am sorry to have taken so long in dealing with the amendment but it is a very complicated and important matter. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: On Second Reading I referred to the particular concern of the Nature Conservancy Council about which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has just reminded us. The situation is that there are numerous stretches of river in various parts of the country where the flow is considerably less than is needed to maintain a healthy river with a reasonable fish population. I prefer this amendment to Amendment No. 386 and also to that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 386A, because I do not believe that it is necessary to review all licences but only those in special areas, where there are flow problems.
I recognise that as regards paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this amendment, water authorities now have and the NRA will have the power to revoke or vary abstraction licences under Section 43 of the Water Resources Act 1963. However, the power is not specifically linked to the problem of minimum acceptable flows as this amendment is. I hope that we may have an assurance from the Minister that the NRA will be encouraged or, indeed, forced to use the power where necessary in that context.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) of the amendment seek to ensure that where licences are not withheld or withdrawn, those abstractors who significantly affect river flows will be discouraged from abstracting more than is absolutely necessary by having to pay much more for water from those sources than for water from other sources. The charges to be paid by abstractors will be determined by a scheme made by the NRA under the provisions of Clause 125, but it is not clear whether such a scheme would allow for the additional or differential charging referred to in this amendment.
I believe that such measures would help to solve the low flow problems. The Minister may be able to assure us that those powers contained in the amendment exist or, if not, that the Government will consider amending the Bill.
The Earl of Radnor: I appreciate the thrust of this amendment but most of it would fill the fish farming fraternity—and again I declare an interest—with grave forebodings. I hope that if anything like this is accepted, it will be rather more detailed than it is now and will cover the rather different form of abstraction which those people practise; namely, the taking of water out of the river and then very hurriedly, putting it back again. I believe that the amendment seeks to deal with sucking great quantities of water out of substrata or taking huge quantities out of the river and not returning them instantly. I believe that the fish farming fraternity is a different case and I do not believe that it is adequately catered for in this amendment.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Perhaps I may add one point to the very powerful speeches made on this point. For some time the water authorities had discretionary powers to set minimum acceptable flows for inland waters. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, in some cases they failed to come up to expectations. The NRA will be given those discretionary powers under Clause 123. However, in my view the NRA will be very short of money and the temptation to

287
sell too great an allocation of abstraction licences will be very great indeed. That is a point which I hope my noble friend will consider. I believe it is essential that an amendment of this kind should be accepted by the Government.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, the Water Resources Act 1963 at present gives power to water authorities, and in the future that will be the NRA, to revoke licences. Whereas I understand the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that that power has not been used effectively in the past, it could have something to do with the rationale behind the Bill.
The Bill is about making independent the authority to take those powers. In the past, the water authorities have passed judgment on their own misdemeanours. Therefore, I believe that the powers are there and one hopes to see them work rather better under the new arrangements. Of course, the 1963 Act contained powers to compensate the licence holder for any expenditure incurred. As I understand the amendment—and I need to have these points clarified, if possible—the NRA has the power to revoke the abstraction licence which is causing the deficiency but does not have the power to make compensation, which it would have had. Therefore, there is a particular problem.
There is also an operational problem for the water companies, in that they could be left without adequate water resources. There is a more serious problem of long-term planning for the water companies. I notice that the term "5 years" is referred to in the amendment, but planning the water business is much more long term. Indeed, to take the example of Rutland Water, the lead time for planning is 20 years upwards. There is therefore a problem on long-term planning. Step licences might be an answer, with the flexibility of allowing long-term planning and some compensation where licences are revoked; but why not allow this Bill to go forward as drafted to see it work and see the NRA exercise its new power, which I believe may well be exercised rather differently from the power now held by the water authorities?
11.30 p.m.
Baroness David: The noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned that the Royal Society for Nature Conservation had received examples from several of its associated wildlife trusts of occurrences of low flows leading to the increased concentration of pollutants in recipient waters. It has given me examples from the River Torridge in Devon, where apparently the RSNC visited over 3,500 farms in the south-west region and found 235 illegal discharges. Therefore, low flows create a problem and something in the nature of this amendment to stipulate acceptable minimal flows is important in regard to pollution generally. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Middleton: My noble friend Lady Blatch referred to compensation. As I understand it, Section 46 of the Water Resources Act 1963 provides that where a licence is revoked or varied the licence
288
holder will be entitled to compensation for abortive expenditure on equipment or for any losses or damage due to variation or revocation.
My understanding is that this compensation will be payable by the NRA—if I am wrong I am sure my noble friend the Minister will correct me—and presumably recoverable through charges made to other abstracters.
The Earl of Caithness: This amendment is aimed at securing acceptable levels of river flows and in principle I am sure that not for one moment would any of us quarrel with that objective. What it actually achieves, however, is rather different and I should like to examine each of its parts in turn.
Paragraph (a) would empower the NRA, if so directed by the Secretary of State, to withdraw a water abstraction licence if no use of it had been made for five years. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that it is not a power for the water authorities at present and that point of view was firmly disagreed with by my noble friend Lady Blatch, and I have to say that I agree with her on that point. She is right and the noble Lord is on this occasion mistaken.
The powers of both the NRA and the Secretary of State to withdraw a water abstraction licence or, indeed, any licence exist already via the relevant Section 43 of the Water Resources Act 1963. Exactly the same is true as regards paragraph (b), which will deal with variations licences which are not used to their full extent. My noble friend Lord Middleton also suggested that the power existed but that there was the right of compensation. I confirm that his interpretation of the Bill is right and that it will be the NRA which will be responsible in future. If paragraph (c) were accepted we would of course not need paragraph (a) as it is merely one example of the general revocation power contained in (c), but as that is already catered for those three paragraphs are not necessary.
Turning to paragraph (d), I submit to the Committee that it is again entirely unnecessary for the NRA to be given specific power to say to a new abstractor that he will be charged something towards any costs incurred in maintaining a minimum acceptable flow, since all abstractors will be charged with their fair share of any such costs as a result of Clause 125. I need hardly say that there is no case for charging new abstractors at different rates from existing abstractors. I hope the Committee will agree that that would be demonstrably unfair.
Finally, I have to say that the logic of paragraph (e) still rather escapes me. The fact that a minimum acceptable flow has been set for a river may or may not entail particularly high costs for the NRA. If it does have that effect then there may well be a case for higher charges in that part of the catchment; but if it does not, there will surely be no logic whatever in a differential charge. Whatever the case may be in any particular situation, however, the NRA will have powers to do whatever is right and proper via the wide charging powers which Clause 125 confers on it. The inclusion in that clause of a prohibition on undue preference or undue discrimination will clearly not prevent entirely justifiable weighting of charges in areas where the NRA's costs are high.

289
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked for a reassurance on the commitment given by my honourable friend Mr. Moynihan that all abstractions over 20 cubic metres a day would be included in the Bill. I can give reassurance to the noble Lord and I direct him in particular to paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the Act where he will find that his concerns are fully met.
Lord Moran: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him what the position is as regards licences of right issued before 1963, about which I am not entirely clear.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not quite understand what the noble Lord is seeking. When I read exactly what he said in the Official Report I shall write to him on that point.
Lord Moran: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I should also like to read the Official Report in order to study exactly what he said. I believe that I am broadly reassured, but I should like to be certain about that after I read what was said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 386:
After Clause 123, insert the following new clause:
("Licences to abstract water. .
. Where—
(a) a licence to abstract water is held under the Water Resources Act 1963; or
(b) a licence of right to abstract water is held under that Act, the Authority shall, within five years of the passing of this Act and every five years thereafter, review all such licences and if it, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Regional Rivers Advisory Committee or the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee is of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, the Authority may vary the conditions or revoke or otherwise suspend such licences in order to ensure the flow, level or volume of any inland water or any water contained in underground strata for the purposes of protecting fisheries, flora, fauna or natural beauty.").
The noble Lord said: The aim of this amendment is to set in progress a review of water abstraction licences for the purposes of maintaining minimum acceptable water levels or flows of water table levels. Licences to abstract water from surface and underground waters are granted under the Water Resources Act 1963. Where water was abstracted by an individual or body prior to the passage of that Act, they were granted a licence of right under the 1963 Act. The maximum volume that can be extracted under the licence of right was determined at a time when our knowledge of water resources was not as complete as it is now. In many cases the volume has been set at a limit that is greater than can be sustained by the natural recharge of underground sources.
Holders of licences of right include water authorities, statutory water companies and industry. Increasing urbanisation and the expansion of
290
industry has led, especially in the South and East of England, to a large increase in water demand. Larger volumes have been abstracted to satisfy the demand for water up to the limit set by the licence of right. In cases where the total volume licensed for abstraction has been improperly determined, this has led to the lowering of the water table, low flows in rivers and, in some cases, the river drying up completely. Clearly, a dry river cannot support fish or other wildlife such as otters, kingfishers and herons. Reduced flow in the river can give rise to high concentration of pollutants with consequent damage to the life in the river.
Abstraction of underground water can cause a lowering of the water table which in turn causes springs to dry up and chalk streams to disappear. Lowering of the water table through over-abstraction affects not only the rivers but also ponds, lakes and marshes along the valley. Wet meadows which occurred along many river valleys have dried up and the snipe, redshank and yellow wagtails which bred on them have disappeared. Nature reserves belonging to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds at Fowlmere in Hertfordshire, Strumpshaw Fen in Norfolk and Dungeness in Kent, which were purchased specifically to protect the birdlife, have all been affected by over-abstraction for drinking water. Marshes have dried up and expensive boreholes dug and pumps installed to maintain the water levels in the face of over-abstraction by water authorities and private companies.
At Strumpshaw Fen, for example, the Anglian Water Authority itself installed the borehole. There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that the private water companies will always necessarily take the same view about their duties. We must surely not allow voluntary conservation organisations to foot the bill for installing expensive boreholes made necessary just because licences have not been properly reviewed.
I should like to draw attention to the problems of over-abstraction in the upper Thames area, with which I am familiar, where the level of the River Kennet in January 1989 was flowing at between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. below the norm. From a river keeper's point of view, if levels drop dramatically, flow decreases; the water table level drops; silting occurs; there is de-oxygenisation; pollution from road salts and fertilisers are not diluted sufficiently; toxic levels build up in the rivers; nitrate levels and weed growth increase; water temperatures rise, which again causes oxygen levels to drop and carbon dioxide levels to increase. The result is that fish, birds, insects and plants suffer, decline and disappear. I should also point out that the more the Kennet canal is used—in other words, the more its lock gates are opened—the more the level of the river, which runs parallel to it, will drop.
Similarly, abstraction of ground water by Thames Water at Compton was started in 1965 to supply drinking water to Didcot. This has resulted in a reduction of the average flow in the River Pang at Hampstead Norreys—the present upstream limit of flow—from 4 to 0·5 megalitres a day—a dramatic decline. Compton pumping station is about five kilometres north-west of Hampstead Norreys. In the

291
valley above, known as the Winterbournes, springs and flooded washlands have all been lost since 1965 as a result of this over-abstraction. I am afraid that I could give many more examples of the effects of over-abstraction. They all point to the need for suitable measures in the Bill to prevent it happening again.
The National Rivers Authority will be given in Clause 123 discretionary powers to set minimum acceptable flows for inland waters. Those could be used to protect rivers. Similar discretionary powers are currently held by the water authorities under the Water Resources Act 1963, but they have failed to use them to protect rivers. Such powers do not prevent the lowering of the water table through groundwater abstraction which has affected and destroyed numerous small ponds, marshes and fens.
This amendment is supported by, among others, the National Anglers Council. It is not surprising that, in common with conservationists, anglers are particularly concerned about the effects of over-abstraction. A timetable review of all abstraction licences is necessary if the NRA is to manage water resources and protect fisheries, fauna, flora and natural beauty in an effective manner. This amendment will begin this urgently needed review. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My name is attached to the amendment and I should like to add my support to it. I shall give examples from the area of the country where I live, East Anglia. I should also like to refer to the Redgrave and Lopham Fens in Suffolk. The Fens are a nature reserve of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and they are an SSSI, notified by the NCC. The Fens are currently being considered for designation by the Government as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. But, unfortunately, 20 of the 330 acres have already dried out because of abstraction of groundwater by the East Anglia Water Company.
The borehole was originally operated by Hartismere RDC in the early 1950s. Pumping has increased and rare plants—such as the fen orchid (Liparis loeselii)—have disappeared completely. I think that it is important to remember the flora as well as the fauna and the fish when we are considering the question of minimal flows in water abstraction.
I could give other examples in this respect—we have many of them—but I realise that the time is late, so I shall just add my support for the amendment. I think that this is an important problem which I hope the Government will take seriously.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: I should like to express my support for this amendment. I mentioned the problems concerning the River Kennet on Second Reading and I think that they are quite serious. In my view this amendment is a good deal better than the amendment tabled in my name (Amendment No. 386A) which has in fact been grouped with it. I think that this amendment is to be preferred.
292
The amendment tabled in my name was designed to arrange that all licences, including licences of right, should be subject to review not more often than once every five years. Many licences have been in existence since 1965 without review. Once a licence has been issued that amount of water has to be made available in the watercourse, or the acquifer, at all times irrespective of whether it is used. It is my contention, as I have already pointed out, that many licences are not used. I believe that licences of right take up too high a proportion of the available resource.
However, I think that such points are fully covered in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and I hope very much, therefore, that it will be accepted.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment, if passed, would impose upon the NRA the enormous administrative burden of reviewing every five years all the several tens of thousands of existing abstraction licences and, moreover, involving two other outside bodies as well as two of its own advisory committees in each such review.
I must put it to the Committee that if, as we believe we all want, the NRA is to be an efficient and cost-effective body, this would be a very good way of achieving precisely the opposite. It would instantly become a bloated bureaucracy constantly at odds with either abstractors who perceived a threat to their vital access to water, or with the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission, or more likely both sides.
And to what avail? The Bill already provides the NRA with the powers which both this and, certainly amendment No. 386A, seem to assume it will not possess; namely, the right to review any licence, including a licence of right, at any time. I refer to Section 43 of the Water Resources Act 1963. The proper exercise of that power involves the precise consideration of where, exactly, it is necessary to amend or revoke a licence; shall we say the sniper's bullet rather than the machine gun?
We are of course well aware that the existing water authorities have not been over-keen to use their powers in this repsect. That is perhaps not entirely surprising if only because of the inevitable objections to withdrawal of a licence on which much may depend, and of the need to pay compensation for any loss incurred. But the fact that water authorities are themselves major abstractors must also have been an inhibiting factor, and one which will not apply to an NRA independent of all abstractors. For that reason, I ask my noble friend not to press the amendment.
Lord Norrie: I have listened with considerable care and interest to the views of my noble friend the Minister who will, I think, have noticed the concern expressed from all sides of the Chamber on this issue. Whatever the Government may feel about the rigours of a timetable for reviewing abstraction licences, they must recognise the seriousness of the problem of over-abstraction and the effect on the environment. The Government's own statutory

293
advisers (the NRC) have gone on record as expressing their particular concern,
"that the provisions on the control of water extraction currently contained in the Bill are insufficient to enable the NRA to deal with serious environmental damage to rivers and wetlands".
I do not question the intentions of the Government and the NRA which are, I am sure, to deal with this problem, but I question whether the Bill will allow them to do the job.
I regard this as a matter of great concern. I shall be returning to it at the next possible opportunity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 386ZA:
After Clause 123, insert the following new clause:
("Restoration of water

(1) Where it appears to a local authority that the flow in any natural inland water in their area has diminished to such an extent that the amenity of their area is thereby impaired, they may require the Authority to submit a draft statement under section 19( 1)(a) of the Water Resources Act 1963 (minimum acceptable flows) to determine the minimum flow necessary to restore the amenity of that water.

(2) On receipt of a requirement under subsection (1) above it shall be the duty of the Authority to make such a draft statement forthwith and to include in it any proposals under section 43 of the Water Resources Act 1963 (variation and revocation of abstraction licences) as may be necessary to give effect to the statment when it is approved.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation provide for the joint submission and approval by him of a statement and proposals made under subsection (2) above.

(4) In considering a draft statement and proposals made to him under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to all the matters set out in subsection (5) of section 19 of the Water Resources Act 1963 but, where he is satisfied that adequate supplies of water are available to existing licence holders he shall, in making his decision, give greater weight to the interests of amenity than to the economic interests of those holders.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment also deals with the problem of over-abstraction with which we have been concerned for some time. The previous amendments, in particular Amendment No. 386, have been opposed by the Government on the grounds that they would impose too much of a bureaucratic burden on the NRA. It is proposed that that burden be much reduced. Reference has been made to the Water Resources Act 1963, in particular to Sections 19 and 43, which are specifically mentioned.
It is proposed that where over-abstraction may have taken place, the local authority of the area concerned should draw the attention of the NRA to that fact so that remedial action can be taken. That is a way of dealing with the problem of over-abstraction by reference to existing legislation and in a way which would minimise the bureaucratic impact. I therefore hope that that approach to the problem of over-abstraction will gain some support from the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: It is too long since I did chemistry for me to remember whether water can be a catalyst, but it appears that the Water Bill can be. It has focused environmental concern in a remarkable way. We have been listening to an example of that for the
294
past half an hour or so. One does not often hear, as we have heard today, the general outpouring of concern from every quarter of the Chamber.
When that phenomenon happens it is something to which governments would be wise to pay attention. We have had several amendments shot down for technical reasons. If the Government are not satisfied with the drafting, it would be a good idea if they gave their minds over to thinking what they would offer instead. An appearance here of no concession would be extremely unfortunate.
Baroness Blatch: It would seem that all the amendments we have had of late are concerned about, and addressing, the point of over-abstraction. It might help to require the NRA to produce for consultation plans for all river basins, in addition to minimum and acceptable flows. That could also include classification of rivers according to character and use, and classification under Clause 101, which relates to quality of water. Some similar classification as to quantity, character and use of water may be needed, and some method of assessing the requirements of its various users. That could be followed by publication of a river management policy for each catchment area, and form the basis for controlling abstractions and preserving adequate residual flows below abstraction points.
The Earl of Arran: The first three subsections of this amendment attempt to give local authorities a particular locus in the determination of river flows, and I suspect the noble Lord proposing it will assume that it is for that reason alone that I oppose it. That is not true. Although we do, indeed, oppose it, it is because it is unnecessary. Local authorities, like all other parties with an interest in water and the environment, already have access to the Secretary of State via the simple expedient of writing him a letter. If they can convince him of the prima facie need for directing the NRA to prepare a draft statement of minimum acceptable flow, he already has the power under Clause 123 of the Bill so to direct. If he is not convinced, there is little point in the procedure suggested here of forcing the NRA to prepare a statement only for the Secretary of State to reject it.
But it is not only on these pragmatic grounds that we oppose this amendment. We see no case in principle for giving local authorities a special place in trying to make the NRA accede to their demands. We are setting it up as an independent body able to assess objectively, and with equal weight, all representations made to it.
Nor of course do we for one minute accept the attempt in subsection (4) to make the Secretary of State or the NRA ignore the economic interests of abstractors. It is perhaps difficult to foresee the practical outcome of the proposed requirement always to give greater weight to amenity than to the cost to abstractors of obtaining water, but whatever the outcome it could hardly be a balanced one. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.
Lord Ezra: I must say that I feel some disquiet about that answer. It seems to me that the noble

295
Earl has not taken sufficient account of the concern expressed on all sides of the Committee about over-abstraction. The objection to Amendment No. 366 was that it would place too large a burden on the NRA. Amendment No. 386ZA, which would diminish that burden and share it with local authorities, is equally objected to. Before deciding what to do on this amendment, I should like to invite the noble Earl to consider whether the Government would take those three amendments away and come back with something which might reassure us on all sides of the Committee that they take seriously this question of over-abstraction.
The Earl of Arran: Of course we take seriously the subject of abstraction, but we regard this as not a proper way to deal with it. As regards the requirement that the noble Lord puts forward that we might think again, I believe that we have made it sufficiently clear that we regard this amendment as not proper, and therefore there is nothing more that we can say upon it.
Lord Ezra: In spite of the late hour, I very much regret that in the light of the discussions that we have had on these three amendments, I cannot consider myself to be satisfied with the response of the Government. Therefore I beg to move.
11.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 386ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Monson, L.

Airedale, L

Moran, L. [Teller]

Ampthill, L

Norrie, L

David, B

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Ezra, L. [Teller]

Russell, E

Graham of Edmonton, L

Shannon, E

Greenway, L

Tordoff, L

McIntosh of Haringey, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Belstead, L

Long, V

Blatch, B

Mackay of Clashfern, L

Brabazon of Tara, L

Middleton, L

Brougham and Vaux, L

Monk Bretton, L

Caithness, E

Oxfuird, V

Clinton, L

Pender, L

Craigmyle, L

Radnor, E

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Dundee, E

Skelmersdale, L

Elliott of Morpeth, L

Stanley of Alderley, L

Ferrers, E

Strange, B

Gibson-Watt, L

Strathclyde, L

Gisborough, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Goold, L

Torrington, V

Henley, L

Trafford, L

Hesketh, L

Trumpington, B

Hives, L

Willoughby de Broke, L

Hooper, B

Wise, L

Johnston of Rockport, L

Wynford, L

Joseph, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.6 a.m.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Amendments of the Water Resources Act 1963]:
[Amendment No. 386A not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 386AB:
Page 231, line 12, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("forty").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 386AB I should also like to speak to the three following amendments.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is only sensible to increase the permitted amount of abstraction without licence from 20 cubic metres to 40 cubic metres in order to reduce bureaucracy. Many herds drink more than 20 cubic metres of water and I feel sure that the NRA will not want to have the bother of administering abstraction licences for a large number of dairy herds. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I compliment my noble friend on his brevity and ingenuity. I am afraid that I shall have to take a little longer to reply to him.
The Water Resources Act 1963 provides for all abstractions of water from rivers to be licensed, with certain exceptions. Those exceptions include water abstracted for agricultural purposes, other than for spray irrigation, and for domestic purposes. Schedule 12 to the Bill provides for the exemptions to be limited to abstractions of 20 cubic metres or less a day.
The provisions in Schedule 12 limiting the exemptions from licensing were drawn up in the light of proposals in, and responses to, the 1986 Water and Sewerage Law Review consultation paper. In their responses a few conservation and fisheries groups argued for lower or nil exemptions from licensing, while naturally the farming interests sought to increase them. However, the 20 cubic metres a day threshold was regarded as reasonable and welcomed by the great majority of consultees. It exempts from licensing small abstractions because the impact on the resource is likely to be insignificant while ensuring proper and effective control of all larger abstractions.
To double the exempted level of abstractions to 40 cubic metres a day would correspondingly increase the risk from the cumulative effect of a number of small abstractions. Depending on the size of the resource, over-abstraction could be a danger, with consequent environmental problems. We have heard quite a lot about that subject in the past half hour. The risk of inadvertent derogation from protected rights would increase, as would the chance of adversely affecting third party interests.
I put it to the Committee that the 20 cubic metres a day threshold represents a reasonable balance.
Lord Monk Bretton: Nevertheless, it will be a nuisance. A dairy herd of 120 cows, with its followers, will just be able to manage on the allowance where the farm is not on the main.

297
However, any herd which is larger will not be able to manage. That will immediately create bureaucracy of a considerable degree. I believe that the same problem will arise in connection with filling spare tanks. I had thought that it was the intention in the Bill to avoid bureaucracy involving that type of small abstraction, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, if possible, have a further look at those figures.
The Earl of Caithness: I hear the pleas of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. I suggest to him, however, that we are talking about abstractions for various purposes. Many of the items with which he is concerned—the dairy herd or spray tanks—could be filled up from the main supply at the farm.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The point is that we are talking about non-mains. I do not want to enter into a bargaining position with my noble friend, but I think that I shall perhaps write to him between now and Report stage to see whether he will consider a slight increase. My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has a point. On a large, or even a normal herd, 20 is running very tight. Perhaps, a slight increase might be welcome. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 386AC to 386AE not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 386AF:
Page 233, line 8, at end insert—
Section 42 of the 1963 Act
. In subsection (2) of section 42 of the 1963 Act (revocation or variation on application of holder of licence) after the word "periods" there shall be inserted the words "and all other minor variations which in the opinion of the Authority are not likely to affect other licensed abstractors,".).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and myself. Under the law as it stands at the moment—Section 42(2) of the 1963 Act—any variation to an existing licence, however trivial, other than a reduction in quantity, is subject to the full advertising procedure. I believe that that system leads to unnecessary bureaucracy. Advertising should be required only for increased quantities other than significant changes at the NRA's discretion. As present, a farmer has to advertise his wish to irrigate different fields. That causes an extra workload for the NRA and unnecessary expense for licence holders with no corresponding benefit. That would equate with the position under COPA where the NRA can dispense with the advertising requirements when the discharge will have no appreciable effect on the waters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lady Blatch has just said. There may well be occasions when the variations to licences applied for are such that they will have no adverse effect at all on the flow of water or on other abstractions. However, the difficulty that I see with the amendment is that it gives no guidance on the size of increase or other change in a licensed
298
abstraction that could be considered to be a minor variation. I recognise that that will very much depend on the nature of the source in question. However, I am concerned that such an open-ended provision could lead to disputes between the authority and licensed abstractors, or others such as conservation or fisheries interests who were not initially aware of the variation because of a decision by the NRA—acting in all good faith with the information it has available—not to advertise an application. Although in isolation the variations may be considered minor there is a danger—as I am sure my noble friend will realise—that the cumulative effect of a number of such variations could be significant.
Although I have some sympathy with what my noble friend has said, I find that on this occasion I am unable to support her as regards this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for his sympathy and good measure in that comment. I do not intend to press the amendment at this late hour. I shall read what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Charges in respect of the carrying out of functions under the 1963 Act]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 386AG:
Page 126, line 6, after ("withdrawn") insert—
("(aa) to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the amounts recovered by the Authority by way of charges fixed by or under schemes under this section are the amounts which, taking one year with another, are required by the Authority for recovering such amounts as the Secretary of State may consider it appropriate to attribute to the expenses incurred by the Authority in carrying out the functions of the Authority which are its water resources functions, within the meaning of the Water Resources Act 1963;").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 386BA.
These amendments have been brought forward not to make any substantive new provision, but to put beyond doubt what are the costs that the NRA can legitimately pass on to its abstractors. If any Member wishes, I shall go into further details, but it is a fairly technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 386B:
Page 126, line 6, after ("withdrawn") insert—
("( ) the need to ensure that the amount recovered the Authority by way of charges fixed by or under schemes under this section does not exceed, taking one year with another, such amount as appears to the Secretary of State to be reasonably attributable to the expenses incurred by the Authority in carrying out its functions under Part IV of the Water Resources Act 1963;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is intended to establish that the water abstraction charges which are to be levied by the National Rivers Authority are based firmly on the costs incurred by the authority in

299
carrying out its functions under Part V of the Water Resources Act 1963, and above all that they are reasonable.
The Government have made it very clear that part of the NRA's income is to come from charges to abstraction licence holders. I understand that to date there has been no consultation and little or no indication, with the possible exception of Clause 125(4), that there will be any on what is a very complex subject.
In 1987 industry directly abstracted 35 per cent. of the water, taken from both surface and ground water, for which they paid some £29 million, the water authorities abstracting the remainder. At present there are many inconsistencies in the schemes applied by the water authorities, and since asset reallocation will alter the basic water resource accounts, changes must be expected.
It is in the interests of all the industrial abstractors (which, I remind the Committee, in future will include the privatised utilities) that a fair and equitable system is created. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like briefly to support this amendment, for two reasons. I think that it is important to keep industry competitive. Joined with that reason, I think that it would be wrong if the NRA funded itself in this way. My own amendment will soon be before the Committee, so I shall speak no further on this one. However, for those two reasons I think that note should be taken of this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Part IV of the Water Resources Act 1963 relates only to the impoundment and abstraction licensing system, which will be transferred to the NRA, but does not cover its wider water resource duties, notably the costs it will incur in paying the water plcs for the right to control the waters contained in their river-regulating reservoirs. There will be two to three dozen such agreements and they will be the largest single cost incurred by the NRA in ensuring continued supplies of water to abstractors. It would be entirely wrong for the NRA to be precluded from passing on these and other relevant charges to those who benefit from them; namely, those who abstract water.
Amendments Nos. 386AG and 386BA, one of which we have just agreed to, set out fully and clearly the extent of costs which are properly met by abstractors. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will not wish to pursue the matter further.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the noble Earl for his response. I take it from him that the charges will be reasonable and directly related to the costs incurred by the National Rivers Authority. Is that correct?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand it, that is the situation. I also hope that that answer helps my noble friend Lord Radnor.
The Earl of Shannon: In view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 386BA:
Page 126, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (5)(aa) above the Secretary of State shall take into account any directions given under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to this Act in determining the amounts which he considers it appropriate to attribute to the expenses incurred by the Authority in carrying out its water resources functions; and those amounts may include amounts in respect of the depreciation of, and the provision of a return on, such of the Authority's assets as are held by it for purposes connected with the carrying out of those functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 386C:
Page 126, line 26, at end insert—
("(9) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) above, charges for the abstraction of water for the purpose of fish-farming shall be limited to the administrative cost to the Authority of such abstraction").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Caithness has most adequately answered my question in his reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. The noble Earl asked the direct question whether abstraction would be related to the cost of administering that. That is the question that I ask in this amendment. I think I should go away contented.
There are one or two matters that I wish to raise. It would be an added advantage to fish farmers if this were the case, because it would standardise matters. At the moment they are charged in different ways all over the country. The variations are absolutely wild. I should like to make the point that the abstraction practised by fish farmers is of the milder kind. For the most part they merely take water out of the river and put it straight back, in precisely the same quantity, although, one has to admit, not precisely the same quality. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. It enables me to say a word or two more specifically with regard to fish farmers. Clearly any charging scheme must not involve such heavy burdens as to drive fish farmers straight out of business. But neither must it artificially protect them from paying costs from which they derive real benefits. There will be ample time for full consultation to take place on this issue since the NRA will almost certainly not be in a position to institute a charging scheme for this new group of licence holders until next April. Meanwhile, I am sure that fish farmers have no need to be alarmed.
Let me repeat to my noble friend—I am sure he will pass this on—that any representations they make will be listened to carefully.
The Earl of Radnor: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I am happy to withdraw the amendment in view of the fact that my noble friend has answered the question as I wished it answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 126 [Provision of information about water flow etc.]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 386D:
Page 126, line 47, at end insert—
("(2A) Within one year of the transfer date every water undertaker shall prepare an estimate of the existing and future water supply requirements for its area and formulate proposals for meeting those requirements and shall submit those estimates and proposals to the Authority in such form and in such manner as the Authority may require, and the Authority may require water undertakers to review their estimates and proposals at such period it thinks reasonable.").
The noble Lord said: Under Section 24 of the Water Resources Act 1973 water authorities had to prepare plans and estimates in the same manner as set out in subsection (2A). This amendment would restore a duty on undertakers to plan for future supply and make requirements on them for any future development. It also allows public access to these plans and estimates. In particular, this information might be extremely useful to businessmen planning any new factory, or developers any new housing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: These amendments would put the NRA in a position of vetting the water plcs future plans for meeting demands for water, while Amendment No. 386G would subject those loans to the direct scrutiny of the Secretary of State for Wales.
The first three amendments in particular cut right across the provisions which the Bill makes for the director general's relationship with the new water companies. The NRA's role is to deal with those aspects of water management which are not to be privatised; in other words, mainly river flows, river and sea water quality, flood defence and so on. Clause 121, in imposing water resource duties on it, makes it quite clear that these duties are without prejudice to the water plcs own duty to ensure adequate water supplies for their customers.
The Bill already makes it quite clear that the director general will ensure that these duties are fulfilled. It will be his job to enforce compliance with the undertaker's licence conditions, and it is intended that measures of availability of water reserves will be one of the items included in his routine monitoring of their compliance. It would be both impractical and illogical therefore to ask the NRA to duplicate this work.
It seems to me equally illogical in Amendment No. 386G to single out Wales for special attention in this context. The Secretary of State's ability under Clause 32 to obtain any information which he may reasonably require from the undertakers regarding the carrying out of their statutory functions already extends to the whole of England and Wales. Quite apart from that, particular proposals for the development of water resources can hardly have anything but the highest public profile, probably including full-scale planning inquiries, at which the pros and cons of the proposal and its alternatives will be fully aired. If the proposal is unacceptable in planning terms it will not be allowed to proceed. If it is acceptable it quite rightly will be allowed to proceed. This seems to us to constitute an entirely adequate system of controls and to make the amendment unnecessary. It is for that reason that I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord gave me a very full and complicated answer and I should like the opportunity to study what he has said. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 386E, 386F and 386G not moved.]
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [General drought orders]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 386H:
Page 127, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Authority whenever circumstances arise in which it is likely to make an application to the Secretary of State under this Section to liaise with the water undertakers and sewerage undertakers likely to be affected by such application with a view to ensuring that any such application has regard to the statutory duties of those water undertakers and sewerage undertakers under Part II of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: As regards Amendment No. 386H, Clause 127 gives either the NRA or any water undertaker power to apply to the Secretary of State for a drought order. Any order applied for by the NRA in particular will have severe implications for a water and sewerage undertaker. Schedule 13 provides for service of notices and makes provision for the giving of objections to and the consideration of objections by the Secretary of State. If this amendment were to be accepted, a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker would be less likely to object to any application for a drought order by the NRA.
The amendment would place a duty on the NRA, whenever a shortage of water occurred and it appeared likely to the NRA that it would need to apply for a drought order, to liaise with water undertakers and sewerage undertakers which would be affected by the order.
The idea behind such liaison would be that any application for a drought order by the NRA should have the least possible effect on the statutory obligations of the water and sewerage undertakers. By liaising in advance I should have expected that many of the objections which the water and sewerage undertakers would otherwise have been likely to make could be forestalled. A particular point is that the NRA should liaise with water undertakers and sewerage undertakers before applying for a drought order.
As regards Amendment No. 386J, a drought order made on application of the NRA under Clause 127 may contain provision authorising the NRA to suspend, vary or attach conditions to a discharge consent. This provision applies to discharge consents granted to all dischargers. Sewerage undertakers should be treated differently from other dischargers, factories etc. It is possible for most factories to close down during a drought and thus stop discharging. There is provision in Schedule 13, paragraph 6(5) for the NRA to pay compensation to people affected by the variation etc. of discharge consents. Sewerage undertakers cannot stop the input to their sewage works and therefore need somewhere to discharge the effluent.
This amendment would require the NRA to agree to and consent to an appropriate alternative means of disposing of that effluent for the duration of the drought order. The amendment is particularly important as, without it the sewerage undertaker would be liable to prosecution under Clause 104 of the Bill for discharging sewage effluent in breach of the conditions attached to the discharge consent. In normal non-drought times, the sewerage undertaker could have been complying with the conditions of its discharge consent.
By an order under Clause 127, the NRA could, for example, vastly reduce the quantity of effluent a sewerage undertaker was authorised to discharge under a discharge consent, or vastly increase the quality conditions attached to the discharge consent. A sewerage undertaker may well be unable to comply with the much more strenuous discharge consent conditions.
Therefore a sewerage undertaker should not be committing a criminal offence merely because it is unable—that is, technically unable—to comply with the revised discharge consent. A drought order may authorise the NRA to alter conditions attached to a discharge consent relating to sewage effluent. Sewerage undertakers are in a different position from other dischargers in that they cannot stop the input to their sewage works. A sewerage undertaker must have somewhere to discharge the effluent from its sewage works. This amendment requires an alternative means of disposal to be agreed before the variation of the discharge consent takes effect. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
The Earl of Arran: I need hardly say that I could not agree more with the spirit of these amendments which my noble friend Lady Blatch has moved. It would of course be wholly unacceptable for the NRA to go about seeking orders to suspend abstraction from particular sources of supply or to stop discharge to a particular outfall without being quite clear what the effects would be on the ability of the undertakers to fulfil their vital duties. But I do not agree that these amendments are necessary to prevent this kind of situation arising.
This is because there are already two major safeguards built into the Bill. First, Clause 7(5) requires the NRA to have particular regard to the undertakers' statutory duties in exercising any of its powers. It would be clearly in breach of that duty if it did not even consult with the undertakers when acting under the drought powers in ways which would adversely affect them. Secondly, it is the Secretary of State who must actually make a drought order. Since all applications must be notified to each affected undertaker, by virtue of Schedule 13, there is no doubt that they would be in a position immediately to complain to the Secretary of State if their interest had been disregarded.
I hope that with those arguments and reasons I have persuaded my noble friend not to press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: If that is an assurance that consultation will take place as the Bill stands and
304
that a criminal offence is not committed if, for technical reasons, a company is unable to comply with the order, I am entirely happy with the reply. However, I shall read what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 386J not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clauses 129, 130 and 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Flood defence functions of the Authority]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 387:
Page 135, line 16, leave out from ("defence,") to ("and") in line 19.
The noble Lord said: The Bill requires the NRA to discharge its land drainage and flood defence functions through regional committees, in much the same way as do the water authorities at present. As currently drafted, Clause 123 gives the NRA the power to give directions to the regional flood defence committees where works are planned for flood defence purposes and are likely to have a material effect on the NRA's other river management activities.
The clause appears to be too narrowly drawn. The NRA should have greater powers to direct the RFDCs than those contained in the clause. The concerns are basically two-fold. First, the existing water authority regional land drainage committees have nearly always contained a majority representation from the agricultural community. There are several instances where worrying disagreements have occurred between the interests of the agricultural community and those of wildlife, especially in terms of habitation. That is particularly apparent as regards wetland and marshland areas, which are very important for certain types of bird life. For example, the Wessex Authority's RLDC proposed a drainage scheme for the Brue Basin in the Somerset Levels and Moors which included the Tealham and Tadham SSSI which is of importance for wintering and breeding wildfowl and waders.
Among others, the RSPB believes that the NRA should have powers to prevent the RFDC from promoting specific drainage schemes where the NRA considers that the scheme is against the interest of the general public and/or environmental interest.
Secondly, there is a need to ensure that there is co-ordination in respect of sea defence works. A scheme carried out by one NRA region may well have an effect on another. For example, there is the problem of the movement of sand and shingle through a process known as long shore drift. Measures to build up sea defences in one area by controlling erosion may encourage the accretion of sediment and may cut off the supply of sediment to locations further along the shore, consequently promoting erosion elsewhere. Naturalist groups, again including the RSPB, believe that the NRA should have the power to make sure that any disputes which occur between regional branches of its

305
organisation should be monitored and co-ordinated so that the general benefits to all are seen. In order to ensure that general public interest is protected at all times, it is essential that the NRA is given the power to intervene and direct flood defence committees along the coastline. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The effect of this amendment would be to enable the NRA to give specific or general directions on the carrying out of its flood defence functions. I must tell the Committee that that would be entirely inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 132(3) whereby the authority is required to discharge its functions under the Land Drainage Act 1976 through flood defence committees.
The Bill reflects the present arrangements whereby water authorities may only direct their land drainage committees on flood defence matters concerning the authority's wider management of water. The arrangement works satisfactorily and there is no need to change it. While it is right that we should be vigilant on environmental issues, I assure the Committee that they are considered with great care, and I hope that Members will agree that it is unnecessary to disturb the balance of responsibility provided for in Clause 132. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment in the light of that explanation.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am still not 100 per cent. certain about this matter. However, in view of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 387A not moved.]
Clause 132 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Amendments of the Land Drainage Act 1976]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 387B:
Page 245, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) Nothing in this section shall confer any power on a drainage authority to obstruct or otherwise interfere with any highway." ").
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 394CB to 394CM. Schedule 14 refers in particular to changes to the 1976 Land Drainage Act and in the case of this amendment to Section 17 of that Act.
The problem with Section 17 of the Land Drainage Act, as has been experienced over a period of years, is that it is defective because it does not provide adequate protection for highways, which is a rather curious word but it really means from this point of view footpaths and bridleways, when drainage works are carried out. What tends to happen in a number of cases is that drainage ditches are widened and the result is that, for example, footbridges may be destroyed and not replaced, or damage may be done to bridleways which is not put right.
On the whole, when drainage work is done which affects vehicular highways, that tends to be put right because the position is more obvious, but it is the footpaths and bridleways which are at risk. Therefore, the amendment seeks to improve the position as it stood in the Land Drainage Act 1976 and to bring it into line with modern needs. The Government may well say that it is a criminal offence to damage the highway, but that has not proved to be an adequate protection and we do not believe that the NRA will be able to enforce it on that basis.
Amendments Nos. 394CB to CM, which are related to it, refer to Schedule 19, which covers compulsory works powers. We are concerned here with the diversion and extinguishment of public rights of way. The legislative background to this is in two Acts: first, the Highways Act 1980 and, secondly, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
At present the schedule favours the private water supply plcs, whereas we believe that it should provide for better protection. Referring to Amendments Nos. 394CC, CL and CN, by introducing the words "public right of way" we want to add "byways" to "footpaths and bridleways". The technical definition of "byways" is that these are unmade up roads which are in theory open to vehicles but which in fact are used largely for pedestrians. They are an important part of access to the countryside and have been for many years. This addition of byways is a feature of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Amendment No. 394CD states that when there is a notice to extinguish a public right of way a plan should be made available, as in the Highways Act 1980. Amendment No. 394CF specifies that in Schedule 6 any proposal should specify the effect of an order on a public right of way. Amendment No. 394CG is concerned with consultations. Amendment No. 394CH refers to making a plan available for inspection. Amendment No. 394CJ requires that the public should have the right to buy a copy of any proposals and Amendment No. 394CK states that the public should be told when the Minister actually makes an order after a proposal has been put forward.
All these amendments are designed to maintain and improve the law relating to public rights of way for walkers and to make sure that the activities of the privatised water and sewerage undertakings do not damage them. They are proposed improvements in particular to the Land Drainage Act 1976, but they follow closely provisions in the Highways Act 1980 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I begin with Amendment No. 387B. The NRA's powers to undertake work in, on or under the highway are regulated by the street works code under the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950. In this respect the NRA. is therefore on the same footing as other public utilities whereby they are required by the code to notify all street works in advance and to settle plans for their works with the highway authority.

307
The Government are aware that there are deficiencies in the operation of these arrangements. We have recognised that there is a need for reform of the law relating to public utility street works and have undertaken to bring forward legislation in line with the recommendations of the Home Report at a suitable opportunity. Outline proposals were recently issued by the Department of Transport. It would therefore be premature to introduce amendments at this time, particular amendments of this somewhat heavy-handed nature which would prevent the NRA from satisfactorily carrying out its flood defence activities. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to withdraw this amendment and I will ensure that the points he raised are brought to the attention of the Department of Transport for consideration under its consultation exercise.
Turning to the second group of amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we share his concern regarding public rights of way. We hope to demonstrate that these amendments are unnecessary and that they would create unjustifiable levels of bureaucracy and are in certain cases inappropriate. It is not necessary to provide expressly for the creation of new footpaths or bridleways. If what the noble Lord has in mind is a new section of a path created as a result of re-routing as a consequence of works, then that section would properly be considered a diversion.
Schedule 19 already provides for applications to be advertised in local newspapers and the London Gazette and for anyone to ask to be kept informed of all applications for orders under Clause 150. As to advertising the order a second time once it has been made, we can see no benefit in this. There is no opportunity for objections to be lodged once an order has been made under Clause 150 and all objectors to the original application are automatically notified of the outcome.
Orders made under current legislation on which this schedule is based are infrequent and we believe that the schedule as it stands—which refers to bridleways and footpaths in keeping with the Countryside Act 1968—fully safeguards public rights of way. While the authority and water undertakers are not obliged to submit plans and maps with their draft orders under paragraph l(2)(c) most water authorities currently do so, and we see no reason why this should change. Nor are we persuaded that it would be proper to require details of rights of way affected to be specified on draft orders, or to extend the list of consultees. The authority and water undertakers will be required to indicate the exact position of the works to be carried out, usually in the form of Ordnance Survey co-ordinates, in the draft order which is also published in local newspapers and the London Gazette. Anyone concerned would be able to check an Ordnance Survey map: these show all bridleways and footpaths.
We feel that these amendments would place an unfair burden on the authority and water undertakers. We are confident that the procedural provisions in the schedule as drafted will sufficiently protect the rights of way. It is for that reason that I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, not to press this amendment.
12.45 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The latter part of the noble Earl's reply relating to the Amendments Nos. 394CB to 394CM is disappointing. I do not believe that he has appreciated how inadequate are the existing procedures. I do not believe that he has appreciated either how valuable for this purpose are the precedent of the Highways Act 1980 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. When I return to Amendment No. 387BI find that there is a curious alliance. The amendments that I have just spoken to were prepared by the Ramblers' Association. In his reply the noble Earl has referred to the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 and the Home Report, which was a review of that Act, besides the consultation document issued by the Department of Transport on 5th May of this year.
I now find that the Ramblers' Association and the Automobile Association, who have briefed me on Amendments Nos. 399AB and AC, are in step on this matter. I suspect that is an unusual position for them to be in, though I do not believe that they will be displeased at the idea. It is clear that action is in hand on the matter, and that would be sufficient reason for me to withdraw the amendment. The inadequacy of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 is now evident. I shall refer to specific elements of that inadequacy when I come to speak to Amendment No. 399AB. In the meantime, while I am not satisfied with the answer, I believe that I shall have to take advice on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 133 agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Functions of Authority in relation to fisheries]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 388:
Page 141, line 8, after ("below") insert (", and who are not Committee members of the Authority,").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is very similar to one that I brought before the Committee at an earlier stage, which in tum was similar to an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It merely endeavoured to keep the advisory committee at arm's length, as he put it, from the main NRA committee. This is precisely the same type of amendment, except that in this instance we are dealing with a fisheries advisory committee. All the same arguments apply. I believe that it finds favour with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister replies, it would be churlish of me not to express my support for the amendment, which is so similar to one that I have already moved.
Lord Norrie: My two amendments are grouped with the noble Earl's amendment. Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 have been grouped together, so I shall deal first with Amendment No. 389.
The aim of this amendment is to provide for the regional fisheries advisory committees to be given authority to manage the fisheries in their area. Regional fisheries committees were originally executive fishery boards established by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923. They became advisory when fishery boards were phased out and river boards brought in with the River Boards Act 1948. Since then they have been restricted to an advisory role.
In practical terms these committees set licence charges for sport and commercial fishermen, regulate fishing under national legislation and consult widely on by-laws which they may promote with the approval of the regional water authority. In Anglian Water the fisheries function is financially self-supporting and has been for 10 years. Income exceeds expenditure so there is no call on the environmental service charge which is normally used to offset deficits on recreation, navigation and fisheries where necessary. Both Thames and Severn-Trent fisheries functions are also virtually self- sufficient financially. The diversion of fisheries contributions as income to NRA instead of going to local authorities as rates will supplement NRA fisheries' income in the future. There is, therefore, already a good case for regional fisheries advisory committees to be given more responsibilities because the fisheries function nationally will almost certainly pay for itself in time.
It may well be that the NRA has the power to implement what this first amendment calls for when it is established, but the continued use of the word "advisory" in the RFAC title is restrictive and, I believe, now unnecessary. Anglers believe that RFACs, as committees, are now very much more responsible than they were. My amendment would encourage them to look forward to bearing more responsibility under the NRA.
I am particularly anxious to stress that my amendment is not intended to commit the NRA to any specific delegation of powers, but it would leave the door open for it to allocate responsibility, under the NRA's overall direction, if necessary. The setting of fisheries budgets and recommendation of fisheries improvements could be two major functions which the NRA could allocate to the regional fisheries committees, provided that NRA had final approval. This would follow the precedent of the existing regional land drainage committees, which have executive powers—principally because they raise money through a local precept. But their finances have to be approved by their water authority. Similarly, there is no reason why the NRA should lose its ultimate responsibility for fisheries, or why ministerial accountability should be compromised. There is also no reason why the delegation of certain powers to the committees should necessarily cut across other water interests. The NRA would continue to give final approval to the committee's proposals and would be in a position to balance the various interests concerned.
310
The aim of Amendment No. 390 is to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is consulted about the appointment of chairmen to the fisheries committees. I have tabled it because I share with fisheries interests in England and Wales, including commercial fishermen, the concern that the Water Bill reduces fisheries status overall, while appearing to offer an improved system. I believe that the difference between what happens now and what will happen when the Bill becomes law is considerable. Such matters deserve further consideration.
MAFF is legally responsible for the inland fisheries resource. The law requires that where this responsibility is delegated—as now to the water authorities—someone appointed by MAFF to represent fisheries interests shall sit on each regional water authority board. There are therefore 10 such representatives at present. If those representatives come into conflict with the policies of the authority, they have the opportunity to appeal to their appointing MAFF Minister. Under the new proposals the NRA assumes the delegated fisheries responsibility, but only one person will be appointed by MAFF to represent fisheries interests for the whole of the country at the National Rivers Authority.
Beneath that person there will not be any independent individuals representing fisheries interests on regional boards. The Water Bill stipulates that each RFAC chairman shall be appointed by the NRA and not my MAFF, or even in consultation. At one stroke, the national fisheries representation has been reduced from 10 to one.
The practical problems of this arrangement are that if the local RFAC chairman comes into conflict with the NRA over fisheries matters he has no Minister to whom to appeal. All committee chairmen within the NRA are to be appointed by the NRA except the flood defence chairman, who will be appointed by MAFF. Additionally, his own local flood defence committee chairmen will be appointed by MAFF to whom they can appeal should that be necessary.
With fisheries income from rod and line anglers now approaching £5 million annually and the prospect of fisheries contributions bringing in much more money, it seems iniquitous that 1:he NRA will control all regional fisheries chairmen and have only one fisheries member on the NRA Board.
The National Anglers' Council feels very strongly that the local fisheries chairmen should be appointed if not by the MAFF Minister alone at least by joint consultation so that a named Minister is also accountable and may be available for appeal should this be necessary. There is precedent in the Bill because chairmen of customer service committees are to be appointed by the director general after consultation with the Secretary of State.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Perhaps I may add a brief word to the discussion on the issue. All that Amendment No. 389 is trying to do is put some teeth into the regional fisheries advisory committees. Under the present system there has been a great deal of

311
dissatisfaction with the role that fishermen have been allowed to play. It is the largest sport in the world, far bigger than football.
However, the fact remains that all the amendment seeks to do is to impose a duty upon the authority,
"to delegate to them such powers and duties as it may from time to time think fit".
Moreover, it would only concern fishery matters. I think that it would be possible for the Government to relent on this aspect, because I must say that some of us are pretty dissatisfied with the way things are going in this respect.
Lord Moran: I should just like to make one small but important point as regards Amendment No. 389, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. On Second Reading I said that all the angling organisations thought anglers ought to be given more say in such matters. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, has just said in this respect.
However, I said on that occasion that I saw the difficulties about making the regional fishery committees fully executive but that I understood that their chairmen would sit on the small regional management boards which would take decisions. After that debate, which took place on 17th April, I saw the consultation paper which was put out by the NRA Advisory Committee. I found, greatly to my surprise, that the small regional management boards would not be involved in taking decisions. I found that they were going to be advisory boards.
Even if the regional fishery advisory committees are advisory, small management boards, which would consist, as I understand it, of a member for the NRA from London responsible for the region, plus the general manager and the chairmen of the three committees in each region, should be able to manage that region, subject of course to the overall policies of the NRA. There will be a man from the NRA in London to ensure that that is properly slotted in. I have put that view to the chairman of the NRA Advisory Committee. I believe the point to be important. If that is done we shall have gone a long way towards what the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has urged.
1 a.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall deal first with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Radnor. When the Committee considered Clause 2 my noble friend Lord Radnor tabled an amendment which would similarly preclude NRA board members from serving on the regional rivers advisory committees. He withdrew that amendment but both he and the Government agreed to reflect further on the points that were made.
The arguments which apply to the membership of the regional rivers advisory committees apply equally to the fisheries advisory committees and also, though their role is somewhat different, to the regional flood defence committees. We have indeed reflected further on this point and have decided that NRA board members should not be permitted to serve on any of these three types of committee.
312
We therefore intend to bring forward government amendments, for consideration on Report, which will have this effect.
I would express my gratitude to my noble friend and also the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who I understand was involved, for raising this very valid point. I am afraid that I cannot accept his particular amendment to Clause 137 since I am advised that it contains a drafting defect. Nevertheless, with the assurance I have just given I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw it.
Perhaps I may deal, I fear at rather more length, with Amendment No. 389. My noble friend has argued that the powers to delegate fisheries to the regional fisheries advisory committee would be entirely permissive. There is room for argument as to whether that is true. The wording in the Bill, to which this amendment would be added, could well place the NRA under an obligation to delegate.
However, that point apart, I would have considerable difficulty in accepting ihe principle that functions should be delegated to the committees, now or at a later date. I know that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell shares our concerns.
The RFACs have always been advisory in nature. There has been no suggestion that that advisory nature has been ineffective in the protection of fisheries interests in the water authorities. Indeed, I believe the RFACs are widely regarded as having made a highly significant contribution to the conservation and management of fisheries by the water authorities.
The question to be addressed is this: how would things change for the better by delegating to the committees some of the NRA's functions? I am afraid that the case for that has not been made out. Indeed, I am quite unclear about what kinds of responsibility might actually be delegated and how the committees could effectively discharge those responsibilities. Moreover, I fear that that may result in a degree of undermining of the NRA, at regional and national levels, as a new, cohesive and effective national body.
I also have to say that the independence of RFACs would be compromised if the amendment were accepted. They could find themselves having to undertake duties which conflicted with their advisory role. Quite apart from that constitutional problem, it seems to me that fisheries interests themselves might not be best served by encouraging the degree of separateness implied by specific and executive powers. The great thing about fisheries interests in the water authorities—and this will be much more so in the NRA—is the central role they have occupied in recreational and environmental matters.
Fisheries cannot be divorced from water chemistry and quality; or land drainage and flood protection; or matters of access and river basin usage. My worry is that this amendment could tend to diminish that role and the freedom of fisheries interests at all levels to act as an influence for the good of its own cause. We want the NRA to pull together a coherent national strategy for the maintenance, improvement and development of salmon, trout, eel and

313
freshwater fisheries. But this effort could be undermined if executive powers went to some regions, at certain times, for particular functions. This would also deny the NRA the possibility of flexibility in its planning or in its responses to problems. The NRA may wish to switch resources; or pool experience and knowledge; or give lead responsibility to certain of its regions to develop centres of excellence. This would be impeded by hiving off responsibilities to regional fisheries committees.
I said earlier that the RFACs have played, and will continue to play, a very important and active role in the management of fisheries. The NRA will have a statutory duty to consult the RFAC on the way in which it carries out its fisheries responsibilities. The committees will be consulted about the setting of fishing licence duties and about the fisheries contributions which should be levied on fishery owners. It will thus have a major say in the collection and spending of revenue within the region, by its persuasive and expert advice on what the priorities should be. It will be fully involved in the development of all other NRA policy relevant to fisheries. However, we believe that the final decision, for both operational and management reasons, should rest with the NRA itself. After all, it is the authority which has the corporate statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries and which would be answerable to Ministers in default.
My noble friend can tell by the length at which I have spoken at this time of night how seriously we take his amendment. I can assure all noble Lords who have spoken that this really is something to which the Government have given very careful consideration. I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, I have to turn to Amendment No. 390. As the Government have made clear all along, there has been pressure for Ministers to appoint the chairmen of the regional fisheries advisory committees, and this is not acceptable. The NRA will be an important, autonomous national body which should be able to appoint its own advisory committees.
My noble friend's Amendment No. 390 does not go as far as this. It provides for the NRA to appoint the committee chairmen, but in consultation with the appropriate Minister. However, I am glad to assure him that that is unnecessary. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has assured us that the NRA will consult Ministers before appointing the chairmen of RFACs, and I am happy to make this clear to the Committee.
So I really do not see that we need to make any change to the Bill, when evidently there will be a close identity of interests between the fisheries, the Ministers and the NRA is seeing that the right chairmen of RFACs are appointed.
Lord Moran: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she could very kindly consider the point I made about the small regional
314
management boards and perhaps write to me in due course about that?
Baroness Trumpington: Gladly.
The Earl of Radnor: So far as my Amendment No. 388 is concerned, I should like to thank my noble friend for appreciating the thought behind what, apparently, is bad drafting. On the basis, as she explained, of taking the amendment away and bringing it back in a correct form, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 389:
Page 141, line 10, at end insert ("and to delegate to them such powers and duties as it may from time to time think fit").
The noble Lord said: I also should like to thank the Minister very much for her very lengthy reply. At this late hour I shall not move this amendment or Amendment No. 390 when we come to it.
[Amendment No. 389 not moved.]
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 389A:
Page 141, line 10, at end insert—
("(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(a) above, it shall not be a duty of the Authority to operate fish-farms as part of its duties under this section.").
The noble Earl said: This is a fairly straightforward amendment. Under Clause 137, the NRA has a duty to:
"maintain, improve and develop salmon fisheries".
The amendment seeks to stop the NRA entering the fish farming field in pursuing the above objects. I again declare my interest as a fish farmer. The amendment is worded badly. A better version would be; "Notwithstanding subsection (1)(a) above, the Authority shall not operate fish farms as part of its duties". My existing amendment is slightly dyslexic.
I believe that the NRA should not operate fish farms, first of all, because the fish fanning industry needs encouragement. There are plenty of stocking fish farms throughout the country from which the NRA could obtain stock if it wished. Secondly, I think it would look very bad if the NRA entered into competition with fish farmers. Those farmers would be very suspicious that the competition was not fair. I am not quite clear how the NRA is to be funded; I do not think anyone is. However, if it entered fish farming, I am sure that it would be thought of as creating unfair competition. For those two reasons I think it would be a bad idea for the NRA to enter fish farming. This amendment precludes that.
I believe that I am right in saying that, although the Forestry Commission grows plants, it does not sell them outside its nurseries. That is not a precise precedent, but I think I have said enough to put my meaning across. For the NRA to enter fish farming would be an undesirable way of going about improving and looking after fisheries. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 389B which is grouped with the amendment of

315
the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. This amendment seeks basically to clarify the duty to improve fishing. The word "improved" is not defined and may be confined to restoring water quality after a pollution incident, for example, or other minor operations. What is needed in many cases, however, is work on water courses which have been incapable of supporting fish life for many years.
Further, the duty to improve fisheries, although coupled with the duty to develop them may be confined to areas where there are already fisheries that need to be improved or developed. Again this should be clarified. I wish to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, on rather different grounds, in that I believe that merely creating fish farms would not be a sufficient contribution to the improvement of fisheries. We should be concentrating on the habitat for fish in the wild, and not merely creating more farms to produce fish. We need to encourage fish in rivers.
Baroness Trumpington: Amendment No. 389A would amount to a declaration that, notwithstanding the NRA's duty towards maintaining, improving and developing fisheries, it shall not be a duty of the authority to operate fish farms. I am sure that it is the case that the authority is under no obligation to operate fish farms and this amendment is therefore unnecessary. I hope my noble friend will be reassured on this point and will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 389B is quite unnecessary. The activities which the amendment would provide for are full square within the NRA's responsibilities within the Bill for fisheries and environmental matters. Moreover, I would draw attention to Clause 141(1), which says that:
"The Authority shall have power to do anything which, in the opinion of the Authority is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of the Authority's functions".
I hope that amendment will also be withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor: I shall certainly withdraw my amendment. However, I wish to go away and read Hansard to see whether I quite understand what my noble friend has said and consider whether I shall take the matter further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 389B and 390 not moved.]
Clause 137 agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Transfer of Fisheries Functions to the Authority]:
1.15 a.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 390ZA:
Page 259, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In section 6(3) (definition of "unauthorised fixed engine'), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following new sub-paragraph—
"( ) A fixed engine owned and operated by the National Rivers Authority for the purpose of scientific assessment of the status of migratory fish populations or the development of such populations, provided that such fixed engines shall not be brought into operation unless the Authority has consulted fishing interests on the water in question and provided also that such fixed engines shall not be operated for more than 5 years without review of the effects of such
316
operation and annual report of results be made to fishing interests.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns fixed engines to be operated by the NRA for scientific purposes. I am told that the current procedure is time-consuming and somewhat tedious. The NRA may not operate a fixed engine which is unauthorised within the terms of Section 6 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act and, as there is no general provision for exempting scientific or management procedures from the requirement of the Act, it must seek an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 for authorisation.
The amendment seeks to free the NRA from what appears to be an unnecessary part of the bureaucracy while maintaining the Act's protection of fisheries' interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: This amendment would change the proposed arrangements for authorising fixed engines placed or used by the NRA. We propose that, instead of the present requirements for ministerial orders to authorise their use, the NRA should be able to use fixed engines providing they do so with ministerial consent or authorisation.
This more streamlined procedure is appropriate given the NRA's duty towards maintaining, improving and developing our salmon, trout, eel and freshwater fisheries which makes it inherently unlikely to use an engine in such a way as to cut across that duty. Nevertheless, as an additional safeguard, ministerial consent or authorisation will be required.
The noble Lord's amendment would provide only for the authorisation of fixed engines used in connection with migratory fish. It makes no provision for fixed engines which might need to be used in connection with other fish species.
The amendment would also do away with ministerial consent. The NRA could use the engines provided it has consulted with fishery interests. It says nothing about how extensive those consultations will be, nor would it prevent the NRA from using the engines regardless of the outcome of that consultation. The noble Lord clearly wishes to build in additional safeguards, which we do not believe to be necessary—but his amendment has completely the opposite effect.
Finally, the amendment proposes a five-year review. The NRA will be a responsible organisation. It will not carry out research work for any longer than is strictly necessary, nor conduct such work without any regard for its effects on the rivers concerned. There seems no need to build in this bureaucratic requirement.
I hope that those comments have been helpful to the noble Lord and that he now agrees that his amendment would not be an improvement.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply. We both seem to be seeking streamlining of the procedure but seem to be at odds on the way that is to be achieved. I should like to take further advice on the matter, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 390ZB:
Page 259, line 9, at end insert—
("(11) In section 14 (gratings)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (2) after each occurrence of the word "mill" there shall be inserted the words "fishery or fish farm";

(b) in subsection (3) for the word "Minister" there shall be substituted the words "National Rivers Authority"; and

(c) for subsection (7) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"The requirements of this section shall be met by all existing water or canal undertakings or the occupier of the mill, fishery or fish farm by a date no later than three years from the date of commencement of the provisions of the Water Act 1989.".".
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns gratings to be inserted on inlets from rivers to fish farms. The purpose is to ensure, first that all fish farms on migratory fish rivers do not adversely affect upward migrating adults or downward migrating juveniles by diverting them, whether deliberately or accidentally, into fish farms or other fisheries; secondly, to empower the NRA to monitor the application of this section of the Bill ensuring that any such gratings are capable of properly performing their function; and thirdly, to ensure the placement of gratings on all affected water courses within a time period of reasonable length to allow owners and occupiers to comply with the regulation and the NRA to approve the designs.
I understand that there have been some problems in various parts of the country with this matter. I do not believe that the cost of installing gratings where they do not already exist would be a significant one for most fish farms. I think that a great many fish farmers have gratings in any case, either to keep out fish which they do not want coming into their fish farms or to keep out items like leaves coming down the rivers. I believe that this would be a helpful amendment and I hope that the Government may be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I have taken careful note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I should perhaps explain that a similar proposal was put to the Ministry last autumn, but after careful consideration we decided that there was not sufficient justification to require all existing fish farmers to install and monitor gratings at the abstraction points to their farms. Indeed, this has not been an issue that has featured to any degree in the ongoing dialogue between my department and the water authorities on fishery matters.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the concern held in some quarters. I should point out that, with the extension of abstraction licensing to all fish farms, the NRA will be able to insist on the installation of gratings as a condition of licence for new enterprises and where an existing farm's abstraction is no longer covered by a licence of right. That proposal should at least preserve the status quo. But I do not think that it would be right to go further and insist that all existing farms without gratings should have them. I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on that point. The costs involved—both of installation and of maintenance—could be
318
substantial for some farmers and would represent an extra financial burden at a time when the industry is already faced with new charges for abstraction licensing and discharge consents.
Against the background that I have set out, we do not think that the proposed amendment would be appropriate, but we would be prepared to review the matter should future monitoring by the NRA point to widespread problems. I hope that this is an encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, although a little disappointed by it. However, in view of her assurance that the Government are prepared to review the problem in the fullness of time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 390ZC:
Page 260, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
("insert the following paragraph—
"6. The Authority may levy, collect and vary duties on licences in accordance with a scheme of charges made for this purpose, which has been approved by the Secretary of State." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to try to simplify the present rather cumbersome procedure about varying fishing licence duties. I understand that the NRA would like to be able to recover licence duties by means of a charges scheme approved by the Secretary of State. Once it has been approved, the advantage would be that it would avoid the present and often time-consuming procedure of obtaining the Secretary of State's approval to increases where objections are made. The idea is that, once the scheme has been approved by the Secretary of State, subsequent increases could then be made by the NRA without any further involvement on the part of the Secretary of State. That arrangement would also be consistent with the method by which most of the other charges raised by the NRA are to be paid.
I should also like to mention one other point relating to fishing licences; namely, that I have heard that there may be a possibility of VAT being levied on fishing licences. At present, the water authorities are exempt. I think that that proposal would cause great dismay among fishermen, both rod fishermen and netsmen. It might also cause sales resistance to higher licence duties and therefore a fall in income for the NRA at an important time. It might also encourage further illegal fishing by non-licence holders. So I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that there is no proposal to levy VAT on fishing licences. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may first take the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, concerning VAT and fishing licence duties. The treatment of all the activities of the National Rivers Authority for VAT purposes is currently the subject of active negotiations between Customs and Excise, the Department of the Environment and the other government departments concerned, including my own. It is thus too early to give the noble Lord the

319
assurance that he seeks on the possible application of VAT to fishing licence duties. Perhaps I may write to him as soon as the position is a little clearer.
With regard to the noble Lord's amendment, I have to tell him that it is defective. As I understand it, the apparent intention is to substitute the scale of charges arrangement for the existing procedures, but in fact his amendment leaves them in place.
Lord Moran: I am grateful for what the Minister has said about the VAT question and I look forward to hearing from her about that in due course. I am sorry to hear that my amendment is defective. It was designed to be helpful to the NRA and to try to simplify procedures which I am told are cumbersome and vexatious. I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will consider this point between now and Report stage and perhaps will be able to bring in their own amendment to cover this point and help the NRA.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 390A:
Page 261, leave out lines 1 to 9.
The noble Lord said: I apologise for moving amendment after amendment at this stage of the proceedings. This amendment is concerned with the problem of special parliamentary procedure. It has its origin in the debate on the Unstarred Question that I asked on 20th January 1988 about salmon conservation. I mentioned the intention at that time of the Northumbrian Water authority, with the support of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to license a number of T-nets to catch salmon at the mouth of the River Wear.
I argued that this was a mistake and that these were interceptory nets and as such condemned by all reputable scientific opinion. There was a public inquiry which heard objections to the proposal to license those nets and a number of organisations presented memorials against the order. On the ground that the memorials had not been presented by persons affected by the order (and included was a memorial from the Wear Valley District Council), the MAFF rejected them and pressed on with the proposal. However, the Wear Valley District Council applied to the High Court for a judicial review and at that review it was judged that the Minister had been wrong not to have allowed the memorial, which had been properly presented under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, to go before Parliament.
At that stage, rather than take the matter back to Parliament under the special parliamentary procedure, the Government decided to defer a decision until a departmental review under the Salmon Act 1986 about the whole question of the nets of eastern England and Scotland had reported. In the meantime, Schedule 16 to the Bill removes the sections of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which provide for a parliamentary procedure, substituting an annulment procedure, which is a much lesser safeguard.
This is a matter of concern to the Salmon and Trout Association which is representing all the angling associations on the Wear that are concerned in this matter. It is also a subject of very considerable concern to the Wear Valley District Council. They feel that this constitutional safeguard—which they successfully invoked in this case against something that they felt was wrong—will be done away with under the Bill and that it will be replaced only by negative procedure, which will be much less effective at protecting the rights of individuals against government departments.
This is a serious matter. I realise that judicial review in itself is a very time consuming and complicated procedure. I would be quite happy if the Government could introduce some similarly effective safeguard to protect the rights of clubs and individuals. Otherwise I think that it would be a great pity to remove this safeguard for the individual. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
1.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like very briefly to add my support to this amendment, which has my name to it. It is the same as an amendment moved in Committee in another place by my honourable friend, Dr Cunningham. There was an attempt to move it at Report stage, but the guillotine motion defeated it. My honourable friend feels strongly, as I do, that the licensing of commercial netsmen who use T-nets—which have a damaging effect on the stocks of migratory fish in the River Wear—is a thoroughly undesirable thing which ought not to be allowed under licence by the water authority and ought not be continued by the National Rivers Authority.
Baroness Trumpington: I have to say straight away that I cannot accept this amendment. We propose in the Water Bill to make a number of sensible updating changes to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. When the Minister makes an order under Section 28 of the Act, that order may currently be subject to special parliamentary procedure if a person affected by the order presents a memorial to the Minister. The special parliamentary procedure is an outmoded and costly one and we propose replacing it with the more modern negative resolution procedure.
The possibility of special parliamentary procedure acts as a distinct deterrent in making these orders. The orders can be used to levy contributions from riparian owners towards the NRA's expenditure. During the passage of last year's Local Government Finance Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, tabled an amendment, which was accepted in principle by the Government, which will help with the making of these charging orders. The 1988 Act removes any risk of fishery owners having to pay both rates to their local authority and contributions to the NRA under a Section 28 order.
I pay tribute to the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in bringing forward that amendment. But I am afraid that this present amendment would work entirely counter to the aim of facilitating

321
Section 28 orders—a concern which the Government and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would share. The retention of the special parliamentary procedure will do nothing to encourage their making. Indeed, all concerned will be saddled, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran indicated, with a pretty bureaucratic, cumbersome and ultimately uncertain route for securing all the beneficial purposes of a Section 28 order.
I should like to stress that there will be powerful safeguards. First, we are in no doubt that any proposals for Section 28 orders will be thoroughly and openly discussed by the RFACs and raised with the NRA at regional and national levels.
Next, orders can only be made upon application by the NRA. Ministers are not the initiators, and that is entirely right. The NRA must advertise the proposed order. Ministers have the discretion to hold a public inquiry on the order. Then and only then will Ministers be in a position to make an order. Having gone through these steps, we believe it right that the negative resolution procedure rather than the anachronistic special parliamentary procedure is the proper course to follow. Perhaps I have spoken longer than I should have, but the noble Lord looks for safeguards and I wanted to assure him about them. I hope that I have done that.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I am afraid that we are rather talking about two separate matters. I have been concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh was, about the problem of the T-nets and the feeling of a great many angling interests that they were wrong and that what the Minister was trying to do was a mistake. The procedure which exists at the moment was successfully invoked to stop that. However, the Minister has been talking about the problem of fishery rates, which is quite a separate matter. On that I am entirely with her. The last thing I want to do is to make any difficulties about it. I wish to think about this further and to study her reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clauses 138 and 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Overseas activities of the Authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 390AB:
Page 143, line 1, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 390AB, 390AC, 390AD, 390AE and 390DA. I regard these amendments as very important. They make provisions for the NRA, when established, to be allowed the greatest possible freedom to manage its affairs on a day-to-day basis, with appropriate systems of accountability to the Secretary of State.
As the House will appreciate, it is intended that the NRA should be given the status of a non-departmental public body. For the reasons which I shall go into shortly, I do not consider that this is in fact appropriate and I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the issue.
The House will know that the NRA is an organisation which will have direct responsibility for protecting life and limb as well as property. A specific example of this is to be found in the field of land drainage, particularly sea defence work. The whole country will recall the devastation, including many hundreds of deaths, caused by the 1953 east coast floods. It is for that and for other reasons that we very much welcome the amendment moved by the Government in another place to enable the NRA to have long-term borrowing powers.
It is therefore vital that the NRA should be able to recruit and retain the high calibre staff required to carry out such duties. It is not only important that the NRA should not be constrained by central government in its day-to-day management, but it is equally important that the new body is not perceived by the outside world as being a mere adjunct of the DoE and/or the Treasury. As at present drafted, the Bill would most certainly give that impression and I accordingly commend this group of amendments to the whole Committee. Otherwise the NRA would not be able to sell its expertise abroad without the consent of the DoE and/or the Treasury as set out in Clause 140(2) and (4). The Secretary of State will be able to give even specific directions to the NRA as to the way in which it carries out its functions, as set out in Clause 142.
Furthermore, the NRA will not be able to increase the number of staff which it requires without the approval of the Secretary of State, as set out in Schedule 1 paragraph 3(1) and (3)(b). Even if it is operating within its overall budget it must still go to the Secretary of State. The NRA will require DoE and/or Treasury approval to pay pensions to its employees, as set out in Schedule 1 paragraph 3(3).
While readily accepting that there must be some forms of control over public bodies—for example, its total overall budget—I submit that, for the reasons to which I have already referred, it would be quite inappropriate to assign to the NRA the status of a non-departmental public body. Incidentally, I gather that the NRA would be some 10 times larger than the normal NDPB; for example, the Nature Conservancy Council.
I have given only one or two examples but there are many others. I hope that in the interests of effective management, which is what the Government want, they will heed these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 140 deals with the overseas activities of the authority. These amendments seek to free the NRA from Secretary of State approval of the financial arrangements under which it enters into agreements to provide advice or assistance overseas.
Although I understand my noble friend's desire to give the NRA as free a hand in its operations as possible, I have to say that it remains a public body substantially financed from public funds. The existence in Clause 140 of the provision for Secretary of State and Treasury approval is therefore necessary to prevent the NRA from providing such services at an uneconomically low cost—which would constitute unfair competition—or entering into

323
contracts which involve excessive risk to public funds.
That seems entirely right and proper. I should also like to point out, however, that this clause is in itself permissive. Without it the NRA would have no clear powers to enter into overseas contracts at all.
Baroness Blatch: My particular interest is effective management in public authorities. That has been my abiding interest for a long time. I believe that, as in local government, freedom to manage within a framework is important.
While accepting the Government's role in setting the overall budget and the framework within which this body must work, I still believe that reasonable operational independence of government is important. I shall withdraw the amendment, but possibly bring it back at another stage having read my noble friend's reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 390AC to 390AE not moved.]
Clause 140 agreed to.
Clause 141 [General powers of the Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 390B to 390D not moved.]
Clause 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Ministerial directions to the Authority]:
[Amendment No. 390DA not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 390E:
Page 143, line 46, after ("Part") insert ("(other than its functions in connection with the making of applications for orders under section (nitrate sensitive areas) above)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 391 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 391 A:
Page 144, line 1, leave out ("otherwise with respect to the carrying on of its") and insert ("with respect to the making of applications for orders under section (nitrate sensitive areas) above or with respect to anything not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above which is connected with the carrying on of the Authority's").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 392:
Page 144, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The power to give a direction under this section shall be exercisable, except in an emergency, only after consultation with the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: These two amendments essentially put it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State, before exercising the very wide powers of direction which Clause 142 confers on him, will consult the NRA beforehand, unless circumstances make that impossible by reason of emergency; and that any such directions will be made public.
Although, as I say, we would intend that both of these things would be done anyhow, we accept that
324
it is desirable that these requirements should be put beyond doubt on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 [Powers of entry etc.]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 392ZA:
Page 144, line 19, after ("enter") insert ("on to any land or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to powers of entry for the NRA, and with it I should also like to speak to my Amendment No. 432A. Amendment No. 392ZA is concerned with the word "premises" being imprecise when the power of entry needs to be exercised on or over land. There needs to be no doubt, in the view of the NRA, that those powers are exercisable in relation to land as well as premises, otherwise farm land would not be included in "premises".
As regards Amendment No. 432A, Clause 172 deals with the production of authority before exercising powers of entry. My only concern here is that the duty is not subject to any request for production and it is therefore considered reasonable that these provisions are amended to provide for that.
The problem arises sometimes when there is no person to whom an NRA employee exercising a power of entry can produce evidence of his designation or authority. As the Bill stands, evidence of authority must be produced before the power is exercised, which means that the NRA employee would have to find someone to whom he could produce his authority before he could proceed. That is a real problem in relation to, for example, unmanned works and sites. Therefore, this amendment provides that such evidence need only be produced if a request is made to do so. This reflects the current position under Section 91(1) of the Control of Pollution Act and Section 111 of the Water Resources Act 1963. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As regards Amendment No. 392ZA, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will be glad to hear that "premises" is a sufficiently wide term to embrace land in any circumstances. What he wants is already achieved. Nor should we make the amendment for clarity's sake, since if we did it would cast doubt on whether other references in the Bill to premises did in fact cover land, and it is obviously important that in all cases it should.
As regards Amendment No. 423A, Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be familiar with stories of unsuspecting householders, often the elderly being duped and robbed by unscrupulous conmen masquerading as officers of water authorities or other public utilities. We have sought to build into the Bill practical safeguards to protect consumers. Following concern expressed in the other place, we have introduced Clause 173 which makes it a criminal offence for anyone to seek to gain entry to premises by impersonating an officer of a water or sewerage undertaker or the NRA. Likewise we regard the provision requiring identification to be produced automatically before entry is obtained as

325
an important safeguard and one we would not want to lose. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will not pursue these two amendments.
Lord Moran: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am delighted to hear that "premises" does cover land. I should like to take further advice on the other point because I am not clear from his reply whether the problem of unmanned sites has been adequately covered. Subject to that reservation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 392A:
Page 144, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) The powers which by virtue of subsection (1) above are conferred in relation to any premises for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State, the Minister or the Authority to determine—

(a) whether any provision made by or under Chapter I of this Part is being or has been contravened; or

(b) whether or in what manner to exercise or perform any power or duty conferred or imposed on him or it by or under that Chapter,

shall include power, in order to obtain the information on which that determination may be made, to carry out experimental borings or other works on those premises and to install and keep monitoring and other apparatus there.").
The noble Lord said: Chapter I of Part III in the Bill is concerned with the control of pollution. It will be necessary in carrying out the duties specified in the chapter to make measurements both to check the levels of pollutants to decide whether action is necessary, and also to ensure that control measures are effective. Clause 143 already provides powers of entry to make such measurements. In certain other cases, it may also be necessary to install and maintain continuous monitoring equipment, in addition to making individual measurements. This amendment provides a power to install such equipment. Such equipment can provide important information on levels of pollutants that cannot be collected in other ways. This information may be an important element in decisions on measures that may be needed, or in enforcement. In some circumstances a continuous monitor may be essential to successful enforcement. Such equipment is generally small and its presence hopefully should not disturb the normal management of the land. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Admissibility of analyses of samples]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 392B:
Page 145, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In the event that the owner of the land or the owner or master of the vessel is not reasonably ascertainable, or that he refuses to receive the part of the sample it shall be sufficient for the person who took the sample to leave that part of it at the premises or land in question.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply concerns the procedure for dealing with formal samples, which I understand may be difficult to achieve when there is no one available to accept service of a part of the sample. It is simply the
326
problem that the amendment seeks to address. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke to my Amendment No. 393 as it is grouped with Amendment No 392B. Clause 144 lays down excellent rules on how to sample water and, as we discussed earlier, how to pass it out between the parties concerned, so that the whole matter is done properly and safely.
Unfortunately, in subsection (2) the whole matter seems to be destroyed because the subsection then states:
"If it is not reasonably practicable for a person taking a sample to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) above on taking the sample, those requirements shall be treated has having been complied with".
The analysis of water is a delicate matter and I do not think that you can merely pretend that you have complied with those complicated strictures; so my amendment would delete that subsection (2) as being improper and unfair. It would certainly be liable to expose to grave suspicion the person whose water is being sampled. I am not a chemist and I cannot say what difficulties a delay might cause with the noxious things that may or may not be in the water, but I cannot see that this is proper in any way whatever.
If the person who analyses the water finds something awful emergency action will have to be taken. We are talking about the liability to prosecution of the person whose water is being sampled. If the owner cannot be found it may be necessary, in fairness, to forgo the pleasure of prosecuting for the other reasons I have given.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments Nos. 392B and 393 offer the Committee dramatically opposite alternatives to the provision in the clause that where the NRA has failed to deliver any part: of the sample to the occupier of the land at the time it is taken and divided it shall be sufficient if he has done so as soon as is reasonably practical thereafter.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Radnor would delete this provision with the effect that if the owner of the premises absented himself and was not available to take delivery of the sample, no prosecution could ensue. This is surely unacceptable. It could give the discharger who is committing an offence a ready means of avoiding prosecution. We want of course to be fair to the discharger. But we must also avoid undermining the purpose and effect of the legislation which I suggest this amendment would do.
I have rather more sympathy with the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that it be sufficient, if the owner of the premises is not available, that the sample simply be left on his premises. But on balance I do not think that should be accepted either. By definition these samples may be dangerous and polluting substances and I do not think a public authority should be permitted simply to leave them unattended. More important, it is essential to the validity of the procedures that there should be assurance that the sample has not been tampered with.

327
I put it to the Committee that this amendment would undermine that particular concern.
On balance I suggest that what we have in this Bill is the better way. A requirement that the procedures be observed as soon as reasonably practicable is both fair to the discharger and allows the legislation to be effectively enforced. That is the balance we need to strike and I suggest that of the options before the Committee the Bill as presently drafted best achieves it.
Lord Moran: In the light of what the Minister has said I see that there is a dilemma. I am content with what he suggests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I am not quite so happy about my amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is about his. I shall reserve my position for a later stage of the Bill when I have read Hansard. Under subsection (2) one of the points I made was that the sample could be tampered with. There is no doubt that it could. I must also make the point that sampling is a precise matter, but it is not always done too well at the moment. Perhaps I may give an example: we have sampling points where water has to be sampled. I can assure my noble friend that many times the sampling point shifts to the most convenient bridge over which the sampler can lean. Sampling is open to abuse and I believe that such abuse should not be allowed to creep in at the expense of the kind of efficiency that my noble friend would like. I am quite happy not to move my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 393 and 393A not moved.]
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Annual report of the Authority]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 394:
Page 146, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Every such report shall set out any directions under section 142 above which have been given to the Authority during the year to which the report relates.").
On Question, amendment agree to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 394ZA:
Page 146, line 12, at end insert ("and shall arrange for copies of every such report to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the annual report which the NRA is required to prepare and send to the Secretary of State and the Minister at the end of each financial year. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to arrange for copies of each annual report to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate. It is clearly important that the NRA is properly accountable to Parliament and the public through Ministers. It is therefore right that the NRA's annual report should be available to the general public. Indeed this has always been our intention. What this amendment provides, however,
328
is a guarantee that the NRA's annual report will be published either by the NRA itself or in some other appropriate way. I therefore recommend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would like to welcome this amendment, but in order to welcome it fully I should like some indication from the Government that they think it right in accordance with my Amendment No. 394AZA that the annual report, which is to be published in such a way as the amendment proposes, should contain a statement on levels of compliance with the effectiveness of the duties contained in Clause 8.
Lord Hesketh: We believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is unnecessary. Clause 8 gives the NRA important functions going beyond that imposed on the companies. We would expect the annual report to cover all the authority's important functions. I find it inconceivable that it would omit these. But for the avoidance of doubt we will endeavour to make stronger reference to the mattter in the code of practice covering the performance of Clauses 8 and 9 duties. I believe that this is the right way to do it rather than singling out this particular function on the face of the Bill. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel he has achieved his purpose.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not entirely satisfied but I am grateful for that step in the right direction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 394AZA not moved.]
Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 147 [Compulsory purchase etc.]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 394BZA:
Page 146, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State or the Minister shall not authorise the use of powers under this section to acquire land for incidental commercial development.").
The noble Lord said: I shall leave the main discussion on the series of compensation amendments to my noble friend Lord Middleton, but, in supporting him and those amendments, I have tabled this amendment for inclusion in the Bill
On 7th March my right honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Ridley replied by Written Answer to a question from Mr. Tony Baldry. He stated that:
"it is the Government's view that compulsory powers should not be available to acquire land for incidental commercial development".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/89; col. 460.]
I hope that my noble friend accepts this. If not, when he replies to this series of amendments, will he give me a definition of what is an "incidental commercial development"? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend quite rightly referred to the statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another

329
place. At around the same time the department issued a consultation paper proposing a variety of improvements in the land compensation provision. I know that this is an area of great concern to my noble friend and has been so for some years. We look forward to receiving his submission on the consultation paper in the fullness of time. I hope that he will not wait too long before submitting it.
My noble friend asked a specific question about incidental commercial development. The difficulty here is that it is impossible to give my noble friend a precise definition because it is so much a matter of fact in each case. If the purpose of the acquisition is not one that is envisaged by the relevant statute, there is no power for the land to be compulsorily acquired. A water company, for example, would not have powers compulsorily to acquire land adjacent to a reservoir for a hotel or indeed for a car park unless it could show that it was needed for the discharge of its statutory functions. That is the key point.
However, there may be occasions when the land is needed for a purpose which is envisaged by the statute but it is also possible to undertake other developments on that land. An example would be a hotel on land required for the gathering grounds of a reservoir. In those cases the justification for the compulsory acquisition lies in the functional legislation. The land is needed for gathering grounds and that remains justification for the compulsory purchase. The hotel would have to be the subject of a separate planning application.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I was most interested in my nobel friend's reply. However, I must say that I am no wiser as to what is "incidental commercial development". I was especially interested in his example of the water authority. I now must give him an example, which I find most strange. It is near a farm in Oxford.
I understand that the Blue Boar Catering Company—I think that is what it is called—is using compulsory powers to obtain land at existing use value for its restaurant and service station next to the M.40 motorway. Surely that must be commercial development?
The other point which I think I ought to mention to my noble friend is this. In a debate the other day, moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, stated that there was no commercial development in the Channel Tunnel development. I cannot understand that comment either. I wonder whether my noble friend can expand on why those two cases, especially the Blue Boar development, are not considered to be incidental commercial developments. On the other hand, perhaps he would prefer to wait until later, when he is replying to my noble friend.
The Earl of Caithness: I have before me a copy of the Hansard report relating to the debate of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I must say that when I read the report I was most surprised to see that my noble friend did not take part in it; I thought that the debate was tailor-made for him. He made reference
330
to a comment made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I wonder whether he could assist me to find that comment by quoting the relevant column number?
While my noble friend is searching for that information, perhaps I may answer his other point, which related to a service station on a farm near where he used to farm in Oxfordshire. I think that it would be unwise for me to comment too much on this issue because this is one of the situations where my right honourable friend the Secretary of State acts in a quasi-judicial role and therefore it would be wrong for me to comment. But, I wonder whether my noble friend is entirely correct to say that the proposal to which he alluded is one where compulsory powers are being used. I think that I am right in saying that this is a purely private development with no government involvement and one in which no compulsory purchase issues arise.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank my noble friend for both those replies. He has caught me out in both respects. In fact I would take my hat off to him, if I had a hat on at quarter past two in the morning. However, I shall check up on the Blue Boar development to make quite certain of the situation. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on the matter between now and Report stage because it seems to me to be a very strange area. Moreover, I am still lost over this incidental commercial development issue. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: If it is any help, there was a debate on the Channel Tunnel in which I spoke. In fact, I divided the House because land was being obtained at existing use value and being passed over on a rental basis to a profit-making concern. In reply a noble friend on the Front Bench said that service stations were an example. They were compulsorily purchased, and of course they did make money afterwards. It underlines the iniquity of the whole system.
The Earl of Caithness: I should like to take up the point just made by my noble friend Lord Radnor. He talked about some motorway service areas. Of course, where those are proposed by the Department of Transport, the department can acquire the land under compulsory purchase powers. The specific example to which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley referred is, I think, different from that. It is not one where the Department of Transport is acquiring land under compulsory purchase powers; it is a non-governmental scheme.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 394A:
Page 146, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State or the Minister shall not exercise the power under subsection (1) above in relation to a water or sewerage undertaker unless he is satisfied—

(a) that the acquisition of the land or rights over land in question is essential to enable the undertaker to meet its statutory obligations to carry out its water and sewerage functions;

(b) that there is no alternative way in which the undertaker could meet those obligations; and

331

(c) that the owner of the land or rights over land in question is unwilling or unable to enter into an agreement to sell the land or the rights voluntarily.".

The noble Lord said: Clause 147 gives to the NRA and to water and sewerage undertakers the powers, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to acquire land or rights over land compulsorily. Similar powers are at present held by the water authorities and by most other bodies in the public sector. That the NRA should be given those powers is understandable in principle because it too will be a publicly funded body acting in the public interest; but private water companies will be operating in the private sector and for the profit of their shareholders.
I firmly believe that compulsory powers given to the plcs should be limited and closely controlled. In the Bill, those powers are too wide and the three amendments in my name (this amendment and Amendments Nos. 394B and 394C) are designed to ensure that the plcs act fairly over land acquisition. If the plcs are to have the privilege of compulsory powers, two principles should apply. First, except in cases of real emergency, they should be required to negotiate both the acquisition of land and entry onto land. Secondly, as they are operating in the commercial field in respect of their activities, they should be required to pay the full market value for any land they may acquire.
I intend to speak separately on compensation when I move Amendment No. 394B. I shall deal with compulsory entry onto land under Amendment No. 394C. Amendment No. 394A tightens up the constraints on the Secretary of State in the granting of the power of compulsory acquisition. Because plcs will have statutory obligations under water legislation, I fully accept that they should not be entirely dependent upon the willingness of a private landowner to sell them land which they may require to fulfil those obligations; but the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the compulsory acquisition is essential to enable the undertaker to carry out its water or sewerage function. He must be satisfied that there is no other way in which the undertaker can fulfil its function.
Finally, the undertaker must not be able merely to walk over the owner of the land without attempting to negotiate. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the owner has refused to enter into agreement to sell voluntarily. The amendment acknowledges that the Bill provides that compulsory acquisition must be authorised by the Secretary of State and that he will only do so to enable the authority or the water or sewerage undertakers to carry out their statutory obligations. They should resort to compulsory purchase procedures only where agreement cannot be obtained. The amendment gives the owner a chance to negotiate when acquisition of his land is essential and when there is no other way in which the undertaker can do its job. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: There is some concern about paragraph (b) of the amendment on the part of water authorities. Some might say that there would be, wouldn't there? I believe that they have good reason. The paragraph provides that there is no alternative
332
way in which the undertaker could meet its obligations. The words "reasonably practicable" or some equivalent should be inserted before "alternative". For example, a water undertaker could need to build a water pumping station at a particular route in relation to a line of water mains. The owner of the land on which the pumping station is to be situated could refuse to sell the land, and lengthy re-routeing of existing works as well as the replanning of new works could be required to enable the water undertaker to meet its obligations under the Bill. But that could result in some existing works becoming unnecessary as a result of the re-routeing and the unnecessary construction of new works. Also there could be two alternative routes along both of which there were owners who were unwilling to sell. Therefore in respect of either route you could not say there was no alternative way. Paragraph (b) of this amendment would lead to an impasse where the water or sewerage undertaker could not obtain a compulsory purchase order in respect of either piece of land.
To answer the fear that undertakers could use their compulsory purchase powers to buy large quantities of land which they would subsequently sell at vast profit, it is worth pointing out that by Clause 147 of the Bill as drafted the compulsory purchase powers apply only in connection with the carrying out of functions. In addition, Clause 147(7) of the Bill contains provision for obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State before disposing of land which has been compulsorily acquired.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Monson: I strongly support the series of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his noble friends, as indeed I did the preceding amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Nobody likes compulsory purchase but over the decades people have become reluctantly reconciled to it provided that it is the country as a whole or, at least a substantial part of the country as a whole, which benefits. But it is a very different matter when one has compulsorily to make sacrifices for the benefit of shareholders in private companies.
It has to be said that the pass has to some extent been sold on this one by virtue of the acceptance by the Conservatives after some considerable initial resistance of Labour's 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. The Committee may remember that leasehold reform was originally designed, commendably enough, to help poor people, chiefly poor people in South Wales. However, the main beneficiaries turned out to be rich people living in Chelsea, Bayswater, Hampstead, Dulwich and so on, who benefited often at the expense of charities.
I suspect that the same thing may happen again here if we are not careful. And it is not just large landowners who may suffer, but small landowners as well and possibly even people who own a single house with a large garden. After all, a man may wish to leave some land to his son or his daughter in the expectation, or at least in the hope, that at some time in the distant future—perhaps 20, 25 or 30 years hence—it may acquire some development

333
potential. If it is compulsorily purchased now, the price will almost certainly not reflect the distant possibility, as I understand it. That is why the proposals as they stand are so unfair and unwelcome.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend Lord Middleton has raised an important point which I should like to deal with fully if the Committee will bear with me. Clause 147 provides that the NRA and water and sewerage undertakers may be authorised by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to purchase compulsorily land anywhere in England and Wales for the purposes of or in connection with their functions. They may also be authorised to acquire interests in or rights over land by the creation of new interests and rights. Water and sewerage undertakers will only be able to acquire compulsorily land for the purposes of their statutory water supply and sewerage functions. The power will not be available for any other purpose.
The purpose of Amendment No. 394A is to require that the Secretary of State or Minister shall not authorise water and sewerage undertakers to acquire land or rights over land compulsorily unless he is satisfied: first, that the land is essential to enable the undertaker to meet its statutory obligations; secondly, that there is no alternative way in which the undertaker could meet those obligations; and, thirdly, that the owner is unwilling or unable to sell the land by agreement. The Secretary of State will be required to act reasonably in exercising his powers, and to give due weight to all relevant considerations. The present procedures which are followed by the Secretary of State in considering applications for the compulsory acquisition of land, or rights over land from water authorities, already provide for much of what my noble friend seeks to achieve by his amendment.
These procedures will continue to apply after the privatisation of the water industry. The Secretary of State will require a statement of reasons from undertakers seeking to acquire compulsorily any land or rights over land. This would need to explain why the land concerned is essential for the purpose for which it is required, and why its acquisition by compulsory purchase is necessary. In cases where the application is opposed, the application would go to inquiry where the inspector would take all the considerations included in this amendment into account. The Secretary of State would also take full account of the statement of reasons and the inspector's findings and recommendations before deciding whether to authorise a water and sewerage undertaker to acquire any land or right over land.
Moreover, it would be inappropriate to limit the considerations the Secretary of State is to take into account in the way suggested. It would effectively restrict the ability of the inspector and the Secretary of State to judge each case on its merits. This is the principle that applies in all cases of compulsory purchase, including compulsory purchases by those organisations that have retained powers of compulsory purchase following privatisation.
334
I explained in my earlier remarks that part of the amendment is undesirable. The third criteria that the Secretary of State would be required to be satisfied about before authorising the use of compulsory powers would be that the owner of the land is unwilling or unable to enter into an agreement to sell the land or rights voluntarily. This would open the undertakers to ransom demands wherever they needed to acquire land for purposes such as reservoirs and gathering grounds and sewage treatment plants. It is often the case that there is no suitable alternative to the land which is the subject of a CPO. Landowners will know this, and although they may be willing to sell by agreement may well seek to extract a ransom price for their land, for which consumers will have to pay. This is clearly unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that compulsory purchase was all right, but only just, if the country benefits. However, it may have escaped his attention, that when we are dealing with water and sewage we are dealing with matters of public health. In my former role, some years ago now, as a land agent I acted for, on behalf of and against water companies and water authorities. I remember using powers under the Public Health Act 1936.
Another point to bear in mind is that much of the work of these undertakers results in using the best flow by gravity means. It is a quite different situation from that occurring with gas, where the gas is pumped. In the case of a flow to a sewage works, it is very much cheaper for the customers if that can be operated by means of gravity flow. That takes me back to the point I have just made that: often suitable alternative land is not available because those kinds of considerations have to be borne in mind. A pumping main is a very expensive operation.
I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lord Middleton. As a former Back-Bencher with him during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act I shared some of those concerns. On that occasion and other occasions I spoke with my noble friend from the Back-Benches. I have looked into this matter very carefully. I hope that with the explanation I have given I have been able to give my noble friend some reassurance.
Lord Middleton: I am most grateful for the great trouble which my noble friend the Minister has taken in his reply. However, I am disappointed. The precautions I recommended are of a very modest nature and do no more than provide the most elementary safeguards against arbitrary land acquisition by commercial companies. I must confess I am slightly surprised that my noble friend has resisted them.
On the question of negotiation, I do not agree with my noble friend. I believe that far from being subject to demands for ransom the acquiring bodies would find things much easier if a proper negotiating procedure was common. I believe that the wheels would turn better. I shall give examples shortly when I move another amendment.

335
I should like to study carefully what my noble friend has said and consider it before another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 394B:
Page 146, line 45, after second ("undertaker") insert ("with section 4 modified so that rule (3) of section 5 and section 6 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall not apply to an acquisition by a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker and the principle known as the "Pointe Gourde Principle" shall not apply to the assessment of compensation or the purchase price payable by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker").
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to go into the intricate details of Sections 5 and 6 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 nor into the Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Company case, because I am certain that all Members of the Committee will be thoroughly familiar with it.
I believe that it is accepted that the rules governing compensation paid to the owner of property which is taken from him forcibly are not satisfactory. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Stanley has reminded us, the Government have recently issued a consultation paper on the subject. I can understand that the Government are concerned about the long delays affecting major schemes, such as the routeing and building of motorways, with all the difficulties arising from acquiring land and fixing compensation. I can also understand the strong criticism that is being voiced of the compulsory purchase powers now being given to privatised companies.
Some of that criticism was heard on 10th May when my noble friend Lord Kinnoull initiated a debate on compensation in connection with the acquisition of land for the Channel Tunnel link. The arguments put forward in that debate are very relevant to the question of what compulsory powers should be given in this Bill to the private water companies.
At this hour the Committee will not think it appropriate to rehearse the arguments at length. However I should say that my noble friend Lord Brabazon took great trouble in that debate to state the Government's view, and we must be grateful to him for putting it so clearly.
Very briefly, the rule is that when land is acquired under compulsory powers the price that is paid to the owner is the existing use value ignoring any additional value attributable to the use for which it is acquired. It is that principle of valuation for compensation which is to be applied under the Bill when land is acquired by the new plcs.
As we have discussed, the Bill limits the powers of the plcs to acquire land compulsorily to cases where they are fulfilling their statutory water and sewerage functions. As we have been told, compulsory powers shall not be available to acquire land for what is called incidental commercial development.
The special difficulty when private water companies are taking land from private individuals is that they will be operating in the private sector for the profit of their shareholders. All the functions, including the statutory functions of plcs, are to be
336
carried out as commercial enterprises. It seems to me that to divide incidental commercial development from all other forms of development is an artificial distinction. Everything they do will be commercial.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull, in his debate, asked how one distinguishes what is an incidental commercial development from what is part and parcel of a scheme. One can envisage a small farmer with hill land, in Wales perhaps, operating on the margin of profitability and probably below it. A water company requires his land for, say, a reservoir. He will be dispossessed and paid the going rate for hill land. Being in Wales it will probably be in a designated area, which would exclude any potential value for forestry, for example. The existing use value will be very low indeed.
The water company then discovers all kinds of commercial opportunities—fishing, water sports, recreational and holiday accommodation—which it will exploit. Indeed, under the Bill it will have a duty to do so because it must work for profit. It will have obtained land at a discount, certainly not to the benefit of the farmer or to the benefit of the public purse but to the benefit of the company's shareholders. Those who will lose land without being paid its proper value will often be people of little means. People like my Welsh farmer will not feel that justice is being done when they are forced to give subsidy to the profits of a huge and rich plc.
From the reply of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara on 10th May and from the reply of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden to an Electricity Bill amendment on 16th May, it seems clear that the Government are firmly against departing from the present rule. But I ask them to consider once again the strength of feeling regarding companies that operate in the private sector being required to pay the full market value for any land, without disregarding the scheme under which it is acquired. They should deal with private owners like any other private purchasers.
This rather obscurely worded amendment requires that the price at which land changes hands when it is compulsorily acquired by a water plc should be the full market value at which it will be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer, taking into account the purpose for which the buyer wants to purchase it. I beg to move.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should like to say a word or two in support of this amendment. I start by saying that I happen to have certain agricultural contacts with Brittany. Over time, I have been impressed by the progress that it has made with its road building and how it manages to get the whole thing done more quickly from the time of decision to the time of execution and so forth. I have wondered from time to time how owners and occupiers of property fared. I have always gathered over there that, first, the owners and occupiers did not make a fortune out of it but that it was not a disaster either. All affected got some improvement out of it. They got a little more land, they at least got a better layout and those who were displaced were satisfactorily reinstated elsewhere. I do not know the full details,

337
but the great and important point is that it seems to work. It seems to achieve something like reinstatement plus a bonus.
I think that it is worth mentioning that French procedures in this respect are probably prompted by the wide distribution of property owning in that country. It seems to me that our rules were perhaps based on the view that property belonged to a rich few some years back. That may once have been politically justified, but I wonder whether it is not now outdated. At any rate, I think that we could learn some lessons from what has gone on in France. I also feel that it is right to continue to raise those points because we have trouble with our compensation system. I believe that, when we wear our taxpayers' hats, we feel more generous and sympathetic now towards the property owner whose property is being compulsorily purchased, thinking, "Well, there but for the grace of God go I".
I should like to welcome particularly the consultation paper of 7th March. The important points that lead from that are: when are we likely to see any legislation? Will it be in time for the Bills that are being presented, which each time involve compulsory purchase? That of course is the reason we tend to keep trying to include amendments about compensation in these Bills.
This proposal would take us back to the situation in 1919. Market value would be the rule and what the private company would have to pay, negotiating at arm's length. If we introduce this provision I think that it would provide something much more adequate for consequential loss and for the victims of compulsory purchase, which would be very welcome.
For that reason I make no apology for putting my name to this amendment. It would dispose of rule (3) in Section 5 of the 1961 Act. I do not suppose that Her Majesty's Government will like it very much, but I believe that this is a good course to pursue.
I gather also that neither have the Government wished to concede the principle of reinstatement. I fancy that they will probably want to proceed some way towards the concept of reinstatement by keeping intact rule (3) of Section 5 of the 1961 Act, but with what I would call further built-on remedies. Perhaps that is better than nothing, but it is my belief that reinstatement plus reasonable extra reward is the least that is required today. The essential course would be to concede just that by some means or other, and soon.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Middleton. His solution is a perfectly reasonable one. I am certain that it is time that these rules were changed now that privatisation is taking place in areas dealing with land. I think that it is quite ridiculous to go on in our old ways. His formula seems perfectly adequate. There are others. I hope that if his amendment is not accepted he will see fit to carry it forward to a later stage in the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: This important general issue has been before this Chamber on three occasions during recent months. It was discussed during the debate on the Channel Tunnel, during the debate of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on land compensation on 10th May, and more recently during the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill. I think that it is such an important issue of concern that if the Committee will bear with me I shall take this opportunity to restate the Government's views.
The Government have responded to the concern expressed by several noble Lords about the operation of the present compensation code. The code was reviewed following an undertaking given by my noble friend the Leader of the House during the debates on the Channel Tunnel Bill; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement in another place, setting out the Government's considered views, on 7th March. As I have already said, the department has also issued a consultation paper proposing a variety of improvements in land compensation provision.
I suggest that there are really two aspects to this issue. One is the question of the scope of the compulsory purchase powers which will be available to undertakers. The other is the question of the compensation payable where land is taken compulsorily. The two aspects are closely connected.
Clause 147 makes clear that the use of compulsory powers will be subject to ministerial authorisation and that they will be available solely for the purpose of the NRA and water and sewerage undertakers' statutory functions. The powers will not be available to the companies for any of their entrepreneurial activities.
In support of the proposed amendment it has been argued that the private companies will be able to buy land cheaply for commercial purposes using compulsory power and that the benefit of its development would accrue to shareholders rather than to the general public. Such statements, I believe, ignore the fact that compulsory power will be available to companies only—and I stress "only"—for the purposes of their statutory functions, not for incidental commercial operations.
The Earl of Radnor: Surely, as my noble friend Lord Middleton said, you cannot divide the two. The plc is a profit making concern, and that is that.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that one can divide the commercial operations, as I explained to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, my noble friend's fears should be further allayed because, I reiterate, each acquisition will be subject to confirmation by a Minister. The merit of each will be examined with the same rigour as is currently applied to all compulsory orders. If the companies wish to acquire land for incidental commercial projects they will need to compete in the open market on the same basis as other private concerns. So we are talking here only about the limited types of acquisition for which compulsory powers will be available.

339
Turning now to the issue of compensation, the basic principle of compensation in the current code is that the landowner should receive the full market value of what is being taken from him. Setting aside the effect of the project for which the land is being acquired produces just that effect. Over the years, that principle has been shown to be fair to landowners and acquiring authorities alike and now forms part of the common law—the Pointe Gourde principle—and of the statutes referred to in Amendment No. 394B.
It is suggested that, as a landowner's compensation would not reflect the value of the specific project for which the land is being acquired, he would, in effect, be paying a subsidy to the company. But this view overlooks the point that we are taking here about a peculiar category of development—development by statutory undertakers to provide public services—which is not analogous to ordinary commercial development. The concept of the "market value" of land for such purposes has no clear meaning: it is not even clear that it would be greater than or less than its value for alternative uses. The landowner would have no prospect of selling his land on the open market at a price that reflected such development. I would therefore ask the question: where is the subsidy?
The proposed amendment would create two compensation codes, one for acquisition by public bodies, the other for privately owned ones. In the Government's view, there is no justification for this. The important principle of equity would be lost; compensation would become a haphazard affair and the process of acquisition made more confusing and costly.
But this is not to say that the Government believe the current compensation code to be beyond improvement. The consultation paper issued by my department, which I have already mentioned, is evidence of our concern. It is clear from some of the responses that improvements in the code are desirable and feasible; in particular there may be a case for recognising the effects of compulsory purchase by way of additional allowances—a point which my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, with his experience in France, found to be quite effective. Indeed the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have proposed a sliding scale of such allowances relating to the value of the land for this very purpose. We shall study these and other suggestions very carefully and bring forward firm proposals once that process is complete.
No doubt there will be further opportunities to discuss the issue of development value compensation. I note that the CLA and the NFU have returned to the charge in the submissions on the consultation paper. But it is of course a very wide-ranging issue, going much further than the present Bill, and it would be seriously anomalous to write a different basis of compensation into these provisions.
From what has been said this evening not only do I expect a full submission from my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but I am sure my noble friends Lord Middleton, Lord Monk Bretton and Lord
340
Radnor will also respond to our consultations on this matter. In view of what we are doing and the concerns that we have shown, I hope to try to improve the situation, if that is desirable and feasible. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lords respond to that invitation, the Government are engaged in a full consultation process on compensation which runs much wider than the implications of the Bill. I think that it is astonishing, while the consultation process is going on, that noble Lords should think it proper to intervene on compensation regarding a small part of the issues involved, and to take up the time of the Committee at this length with something on which noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to submit evidence to the Government. It is really only marginal to the consideration of the Bill. I know that my own concern is for the progress and improvement of the Water Bill, but I think that to some extent noble Lords are taking advantage of the Committee in this respect.
2.45 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raises a valid point in that he confirms what I said, that we are now discussing a very much greater and wider ranging issue than that relating to the present Bill. However, I believe that, having spent seven and three-quarter days in Committee, to take 20 minutes to try to give a full answer is perhaps not excessive.
Lord Middleton: Again I am grateful for my noble friend's very full reply. I am sorry that this should take up the Committee's time, but as my noble friend has said, it is a very important point and it is not my fault that this is happening at quarter to three in the morning.
Until I heard the last part of what my noble friend, the Minister said, I was rather disappointed by his reply. I felt that the Government's attitude might be compared with that of the Emperor Constantine when he decided to delay marching his legions from Gaul into Italy. Edward Gibbon described him as restrained by considerations of prudence rather than by principles of justice.
While stating the Government's position on what the amendment tries to achieve, my noble friend the Minister held out some encouragement. He said that the Government would look at a proposal put forward, I think he said by the RICS, about payment of some kind of additional allowance. As my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton said, something of this kind is practised in France. It might go some way towards oiling the wheels and solving the immense delays and difficulties for large projects.
I am also aware of the practical difficulties inherent in making a valuation for some of the purposes for which the water plcs may require land. But I do not believe that they are insuperable. For those reasons and in the hope that between now and the Report stage the Government may come a little further towards my view that the principles of justice

341
in this matter are not being upheld by the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 394ZB not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 394BA:
Page 147, line 40, leave out ("for the purposes of a water or sewerage undertaking").
The noble Earl said: Clause 147 provides that that NRA, water and sewerage undertakers may be authorised by the Secretary of State, or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to purchase compulsorily land for the purpose of their functions. Subsecion (7) prevents the disposal of compulsorily acquired land without ministerial consent. This is a technical amendment to clarify the situation concerning the land to which disposal consent in subsection (7) is to apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Modification of Compensation Provisions etc. in relation to the Creation of New Rights]:
[Amendment No. 394BB not moved]:
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clause 148 agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Powers with respect to the Laying and Maintenance of Pipes etc.]:
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 394C:
Page 267, line 16, leave out from ("only") to ("and") in line 18 and insert—
("(i) in an emergency or when a pipeline is being laid in order to comply with a requisition under this Act, only after reasonable notice has been given to the owner and occupier of the land;
(ii) in all other circumstances, only after the consent of the owner and occupier has been given, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; any question whether such consent is or is not unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State;").
The noble Lord said: The Water Act 1945 provided that pipe laying on privately owned land could be undertaken only with the consent of the owner and occupier. If that consent was unreasonably withheld the undertaker could ask the Secretary of State to intervene. That provision worked perfectly well until it was amended by the Statutory Instrument Order 1974. That gave to water authorities the power to lay pipes on any land after giving reasonable notice. That power is transferred in the Bill by paragraph 4 of Schedule 18.
The exercise of that power has caused more dissatisfaction and ill will among the owners and occupiers of land than have any other of the statutory powers given to water authorities. I fully recognise that when work needs to be done as a matter of urgency, or where public health is at risk, compulsory powers of entry should be available. If we do not amend Schedule 18 while allowing for emergencies just the same problems will arise as have arisen since
342
the 1974 order. They have arisen because the staff of the water authorities have known perfectly well that they have statutory power of entry without any requirement to consult or negotiate. In practice, not only have they failed to consult but their contractors have not been properly supervised in too many cases and have caused damage in too many instances. The delays in settling compensation have become notorious.
The behaviour of the water authorities in relation to those whose land they have entered is in strong contrast with that of British Gas and the oil companies. In respect of those bodies there are proper procedures to undergo before they can acquire any rights or land that they need. There are no rights of entry to construct oil or gas pipelines without authorisation. In practice they negotiate entry and terms. In the absence of agreement there are compulsory purchase procedures with rights of objection and a hearing.
By offering reasonable terms and safeguards, British Gas was able to distribute North Sea gas through thousands of miles of pipelines through private land, with dispatch and virtually no recourse to public order. I do not see any reason why water companies should not be required to behave in the same way, and this amendment would ensure that they did. It is not right that the absolute powers of entry of the water authorities should be handed over to the water companies, except in exceptional cases of emergency. I fear that to leave the Bill as it stands will lead to friction and injustice. By treatying with owners and occupiers, water companies will find, as have British Gas and the oil companies, that they will not be held up or held to ransom I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Water authorities are currently able to lay water mains and sewers after serving reasonable notice on the owners and occupiers of the land through which the pipes are to run. They are not required to obtain consent. We have decided to retain these powes for public health and operational reasons as satisfactory water supply and sewerage arrangements are essential to public health. As my noble friend has pointed out, and as I know, they would be the only public utilities with this power. The water industry can, however, properly be regarded as operating in a different context from other utilities. Undertakers need to be able to replace defective private water supplies with public ones and complete major sewerage schemes (including those required to comply with EC standards for bathing water) quickly and without the delays that would be involved in seeking the consent of every landowner involved and where consent was not forthcoming referring the matter to the Secretary of State.
I am aware, however, of the scope these powers may offer for arbitrary behaviour on the part of the undertakers. It is because of this that we have decided that the powers should be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the private companies to the Secretary of State for approval. These will contain similar provisions to those in the model code which the department has produced in consultation with the water industry

343
and landowning interests. Copies of the model code are available in the Library. Unlike the voluntary codes which already exist in some water authorities, these codes will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general.
There is also provision in Clause 156 of the Bill for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment to a complainant if he is satisfied that an undertaker has failed to consult the owner or occupier before or during pipe laying or by acting unreasonably has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced.
The effect of this amendment would be to place a severe constraint on the ability of the authority and undertakers to carry out the works which are required of them and which in many cases are essential to public health. I hope with those assurances my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Middleton: I believe that the water companies would find it a great deal easier to get their work done under the suggestions that I made. However, I shall study very carefully what my noble friend said and I shall perhaps return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 394CA:
Page 267, line 20, at end insert—
("(5) Any notice served under this paragraph may be registered as a local land charge under Local Land Charges Act 1975.").
The noble Baroness said: Water and sewerage undertakers will have a power to lay mains and sewers following service of a notice on the landowners and occupiers. In the past a problem has arisen when property changes hands and those notices are not handed down from one owner to another. In the case of properties in built-up areas, the problem is perhaps less serious. However, in open countryside new owners may have no reason to believe that there is a main or sewer under their land.
This amendment would enable water and sewerage undertakers to register notices as to main or sewer laying as a local land charge and thus new owners of the land would be aware of the mains and sewers under them.
I have deliberately stated "may" and not "shall" as the water and sewerage undertakers should have a discretion as to whether the main or sewer is in and area where it would be appropriate to register the land charge; that is, in open countryside, perhaps yes, but in built up areas, perhaps no. It is important that landowners know whether there is a main or sewer under their land as damage is often caused to water mains or sewers when landowners carry out works—for example, laying field drains—without realising that a main or sewer is under their land.
This amendment is important for the protection of pipes and other apparatus of water and sewerage undertakers. It is also important for the protection of the landowners themselves. For example, someone may buy a piece of land with the intention of building
344
or for some other purpose. He would obviously want to know at the time that he bought it that there was a main or sewer under that land. At present if the land has changed hands several times since the main or sewer was laid and the potential purchaser does not go to the trouble of inspecting maps of mains and sewers, he may not be aware that the main or sewer was in existence. If this amendment was accepted, searches carried out before the property was bought would reveal the existence of the main or sewer.
I hope that the Minister will see the need for this amendment and will accept it. If the amendment is not acceptable, I invite my noble friend to recognise that a problem exists and I ask him to consider whether there is another means of tackling the problem. I have suggested another way to tackle part of the problem in amendments to Clause 161 but they look at the problem from the point of view of protecting water and sewerage undertakers.
By those amendments, a landowner would be deemed to be negligent if he carried out work which affected a water main or sewer without first having inspected the maps of mains and sewers held by water and sewerage undertakers. Those amendments look at the problem further along the line. This attempts to nip it in the bud by providing a means of making a landowner aware of mains and sewers under land before he even buys the land. Those are two suggested solutions to a major problem on which I look forward to hearing the comments of my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
3 a.m.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment would place an unnecessary burden on local authorities and it could also make legal searches even more time consuming and costly. The effect would be that notices served under Schedule 18 to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair or alter pipes, as well as those concerned with laying pipes, would all require to be registered.
We appreciate that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the future owners of the land are aware of any pipes that cross the land. However, this can be achieved by following the provisions of the model code of practice for pipelaying, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This provides for undertakers to permanently mark the line of a pipeline at field boundaries.
Concern over future building taking place over sewers or pipes is met by the relevant provisions of the Building Act 1984, as amended by Schedule 8 to the Bill. Local authorities are required to consult sewerage undertakers when plans deposited for the purpose of complying with building regulations involve building over a sewer or drain shown on the sewer map. This procedure ensures that the undertaker's interests will be more than adequately protected. If an undertaker is concerned to ensure that no activity takes place over the line of a pipeline without its agreement, it is open to the undertaker to negotiate easements with the landowner concerned. These provide undertakers with a legal interest in

345
the land concerned which is incorporated into title deeds and passed on when the land changes hands.
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and therefore I ask my noble friend not to press it.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for that reply. On the suggestion that undertakers should enter into an easement with the landowner on each and every case, it needs to be noted that mains and sewers last for many years and it is not possible to envisage the future use of land when they are laid. Moreover, to negotiate an easement in all cases would defeat the object of having power to lay mains and sewers following the serving of notices.
I am concerned about the passing down of this information so that damage cannot be done in future years, but in view of the late hour I shall not press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clauses 149 and 150 agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Orders conferring Compulsory Works Powers]:
[Amendments Nos. 394CB to 394CM not moved.]
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clause 151 [Power to carry out surveys and to search for water]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 394D and 394E:
Page 151, line 21, after ("water") insert—
("( ) to install and keep monitoring or other apparatus on the premises for the purpose of obtaining the information on which any such determination as is mentioned in subsection (2) above may be made;").
Page 151, line 24, leave out ("mentioned in subsection (2) above") and insert ("so mentioned").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I move these amendments together. The purpose of the amendments is to provide that the authority and the water undertakers are able to,
"install and keep monitoring or other apparatus on the premises".
This will enable them to obtain the information they require in order to determine whether to acquire the land or to apply for a compulsory works order. The apparatus involved will generally be for drilling and pumping purposes, together with associated pipework. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Byelaws with respect to waterways etc. in which the Authority or undertakers have an interest]:
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 395:
Page 152, line 38, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and at the same time perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 396 to 399. Clause 153
346
reflects the powers available to water authorities under the Countryside Act 1968 and perspectively Section 48 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. However, subsection (2) is something quite new and on which the boating interests were not consulted. They are not very happy about it. My Amendment No. 395 seeks to delete the subsection altogether or, failing that, Amendment No. 397 proposes to exclude coastal waters from its application. Subsection (2) would enable the NRA to make by-laws in relation to any inland waters that are not otherwise controlled.
The definition of inland waters in the Bill includes,
"any channel, creek, bay, estuary or arm of the sea".
Thus the NRA would be given unprecedented by-law and registration powers to control navigation in tidal waters.
There seems no basis for such wide-ranging powers particularly given that tidal waters do not contribute to water supply. In relation to estuaries and creeks at least the proposal would seem to be unintentional for with the exception of Rye harbour which is controlled by Southern Water, the NRA will have no immediate experience of or interest in regulating boating or sailing in coastal waters. It would also necessarily involve the diversion of the NRA's limited funds and resources.
If there is a need for any powers in relation to tidal waters—and I understand it is desired to control canoeists on the River Wye—it nevertheless appears to me appropriate strictly to limit the definition of inland waters to exclude coastal waters in particular. The creation of this new power in a body that I submit is ill-suited to its exercise, is in sharp contrast to the meticulous care that is exercised by the DoT Ports Division in its supervision of harbour and conservancy authority constitutions.
In addition, for the NRA to be given by-law and registration powers for tidal waters either duplicates or is inconsistent with a number of existing measures, such as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 which removes the requirement for compulsory registration for pleasure yachts. The boating interests and particularly the Inland Waterways' Association also question the case for the wide-ranging powers proposed in subsection (2) which would allow the NRA to make by-laws in relation to waterways that are not otherwise controlled.
Except in three of the 10 water authority areas, the NRA will inherit no navigation functions and the desirability of making by-laws in the absence of any presence on the waterway in question seems doubtful. Furthermore, the boating interests are concerned that it is likely seriously to prejudice the establishment of local management by voluntary navigation trusts and similar bodies that are best fitted by reason of their motivation, to direct local involvement and expertise in assuming this role.
If such powers are to be made available, the boating interests suggest that it is better for such voluntary navigation trusts and similar bodies to have the facility to make the by-laws. My Amendments Nos. 396 and 398 are directed to that purpose. I suggest that a local group that has an interest in maintaining a waterway in a condition

347
that allows it to be enjoyed by everyone is best fitted to exercise powers of regulation. Such groups are invariably comprised of a committee of responsible individuals who are only too well aware of the need not only to maintain the locks and weirs, where they exist, but also to ensure that those who use and enjoy the river or canal leave it in a condition that enables other to do the same.
I cite one particular example that is generally acknowledged by riparian owners, anglers and canoeists to be very successful. That is the Upper Avon Navigation Trust which is a charitable trust appointed as the navigation authority for the upper Avon under the terms of the Upper Avon Navigation Act 1972. I will not go into details on that at this late hour. Suffice it to say that there are other groups that would like to follow the example of Upper Avon and who would be encouraged in their efforts if the Government were to accept these amendments even though it would still be necessary for them to obtain specific authority and planning permission in order to provide locks, weirs and mooring sites where these do not exist.
Finally, Amendment No. 399 aims to secure that by-laws can be made not simply to restrain the exercise of rights of navigation but also in the interests of preserving them. This is not only important in itself but also has the benefit of changing the emphasis of the clause to encompass specifically the interests of navigation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 395 would remove altogether the NRA's power to make by-laws with respect to certain inland waters, and, as the noble Lord said when he moved the amendment, would render the other amendments redundant. I am afraid that there really can be no question of accepting it. The NRA's power in subsection (2) of this clause stems from the very real need to bring order to stretches of river where there is conflict, particularly between anglers and canoeists. We come back to the question of balance, something which I have raised on numerous occasions at Second Reading and in Committee. Here we have another example of where balance is even more necessary because the boating interests feel under threat. However, there are other interests to be taken into account.
Amendment No. 397 has the more modest objective of limiting the by-law-making powers to rivers and other truly inland waters, and keeping it away from coastal waters. Here, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in so far as I would certainly not envisage any need for any but the most occasional use of the power other than with respect to rivers. But it seems to me that the same conflicts which exist now on some rivers could in the future arise in estuaries, for instance. Who can say? I do not believe that it would be prudent to jettison the power to intervene in such circumstances, especially since by definition there might be no other means of regulating conflict.
Turning to Amendment No. 398, I have to say that there really can be no question of a by-law-making power being delegated to third parties
348
in the way suggested. Although there are no doubt some bodies which are sufficiently worthy and capable as to be entrusted with this function, I must respectively remind the noble Lord that even the Secretary of State cannot make by-laws without a specific power being conferred on him by statute, and that when he is given such powers they are never able to be delegated. Similarly in this instance: the power to make by-laws is, after all, an important public function, giving rise to offences and penalties. It is not right, in general, for it to be delegated, and I suggest that there is nothing about this specific situation which would make it right here, nor, in practice, do I feel that it would actually serve any useful purpose. For if the NRA were to be sufficiently close to any particular case so as to be sure that it was content to delegate the by-law power, it would almost certainly be the case that it had already acquired a very clear picture of what ought to be done, and I doubt whether by then there would be any advantage in nominating another person or body to take the task forward.
As to Amendment No. 399, the by-law-making power extends in subsection (3)(c) to securing that persons resorting to water behave so as to avoid undue interference with others, and to that extent would enable the prevention of some kinds of obstruction to navigation. If, however, someone places a chain across a river, or places some other object in it so as to prevent navigation, he will be doing something equivalent to obstructing a public right of way. That would be illegal quite apart from any illegality created by by-laws. The appropriate procedure in such cases would be civil action by affected parties rather than action via by-laws.
Although I fully accept the spirit of the amendment, I hope that, with the reasons I have given, the noble Lord will see that there is another side to the argument and will not seek to press it.
Lord Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I am naturally disappointed that he cannot see fit to accept any of the amendments. In regard to the coastal waters question, it is rather the thin edge of the wedge to confer by-law powers in the face of one problem. To say that they will never be used is, with respect, a hoary old chestnut. However, I shall read with care what the noble Earl has said and, in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 396 and 397 not moved].
3.15 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 397A:
Page 152, line 39, leave out ("in relation to which there is a public right of navigation").
The noble Lord said: I was greatly encouraged by the remarks just made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about balance. I say that because that is what I am seeking to achieve in the three amendments to which I should now like to speak; namely, Amendments Nos. 397A, 398A and 399ZA. All of them concern navigation. The question of balance is crucial.
On Second Reading I quoted what Mr. Ridley said about the NRA needing freedom to hold the ring between the many and sometimes competing interests which want to enjoy our lakes, rivers and estuaries. I have spoken on one or two occasions in this Chamber on this issue. My concern all along has been to ensure that some authority—clearly it must be the NRA in respect of inland waters—should have powers to control all forms of recreation.
Anglers are already, quite rightly, tightly controlled, but canoeists (who have already been mentioned) are not controlled at all. Moreover, unlike the anglers who have to pay substantially for their sport, the canoeists are heavily subsidised through the Sports Council by the taxpayer.
The object of these amendments is to ensure that there is no doubt that the NRA has powers to control boating, as well as angling, in all inland waters. They would extend the power of the NRA to make by-laws for keeping good order on waters and land associated with waters. As presently worded, the NRA's by-law-making powers are confined to waters which are subject to a public right of navigation and any land associated with such waters. That creates difficulties.
On some rivers public rights are claimed where the riparian owners and owners of the fishing rights are convinced that they do not exist. On others there is uncertainty as to the status of the river. It is not for the NRA to pronounce on the existence of rights; it is for the courts to decide.
The first amendment removes the words limiting the by-law-making power to public navigations. The second extends the by-law-making power to cover the registration and marking of boats. That is obviously essential to make it possible to enforce by-laws for the control of boats.
The third amendment adds words to the definition of "boat" to make it clear that any craft is included. Such devices as jet-skis and hovercraft are already included by way of the definition of "vessel" contained in Clause 182(1).
I was encouraged by what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said on the third day in Committee. On 8th May (at col. 436 of Hansard) while talking about the NRA he said:
"It should … be able to help manage effective recreational uses of rivers where there is no navigation authority or give support to local voluntary bodies to do this … there must be a body which, irrespective of its other regulatory functions, is able to take a clear overall view of the development of recreation on rivers where this is needed. Again, it should not be expected that the NRA will make dramatic use of these powers in the short term".
I was happy to read those words, but it is the case that the NRA is a creature of statute and it will only be able to do what the statute enables it to do. My amendments are designed to enable it to have wider by-law-making powers for the control of boating. By-laws are invalid if they go beyond the scope of a power given in the Bill. I doubt whether the NRA can control the recreational use of waters other than by by-laws. It can of course do so on its own waters (the ones that it owns or controls directly) but there is little scope otherwise for it to control boating.
Clause 10 provides for a code of practice, but that falls to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. It is a real problem. It is not merely a question of canoes. For example, at the moment on the Wye, the river that I know best, a barge, 136 feet long and weighing 230 tonnes, has been brought in. It is now creating a serious nuisance. It is stuck in the mud in the lower reaches of the river. It has been stuck three times. It is intended to move it up to Hereford for it to be used as a restaurant.
It is necessary for a body such as the NRA to have powers to control all forms of boating, including that sort of thing. I hope that the Government will agree that the provision is common sense and that it is not sensible to have the NRA able to exercise powers of regulation on one section of a river and not on another. I hope that they will agree with the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My noble friend Lord Moran will not be surprised if I resist this set of amendments. I have some sympathy with him with regard to the canoeing problem on the Wye. The barge is an isolated incident. Presumably, once it arrives at Hereford that will be the end of matter.
We cannot tar everyone with the same brush and extend by-law powers nation-wide. It is just not on to make the registration by-laws applicable to private waterways. My noble friend mentioned balance. The amendments begin to shift the balance in the other direction, which is why I am unhappy with them.
Lord Moran: With the Committee's permission, perhaps I may add that it is not merely a problem with canoes on the Wye. There is a problem there, but there is a problem on many other rivers. I shall not bother the Committee by giving their names, but it is a general problem. It is not confined to the Wye.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 397A would, I think it is fair to say, turn what we intended to be a useful but modest provision for bringing order to rivers such as the Wye and a few others into one which would almost justify changing the Bill's title to the Water and Navigation Bill. To give the NRA such powers would cut right across the powers of all other existing navigation authorities, including the British Waterways Board and many harbour authorities. Even if it were judged right at some future time to make such a provision it would have to be linked with a review of the whole of navigation law in England and Wales and be accompanied by a mass of other legislation. I therefore really cannot see how this amendment could possibly be accepted in the context of this Bill.
As to Amendment No. 398A, the NRA will of course have the power to require registration and the display of registration numbers if it sees fit; but I suggest that there can surely be no case for requiring every canoe, inflatable dinghy, coracle, jet-ski, or whatever, to be registered. There would be no sense or obvious purpose in such a requirement even if there were a case for the universal registration of, say, larger powered vessels. I suggest with all respect that those are matters much better left to the discretion of the NRA.

351
I have considerable sympathy, however, with Amendment No. 399ZA. There is clearly a need to be sure that all of the vast variety of leisure devices which can be used on or in water can be covered by the by-laws which this clause envisages. However, I think that the clause is adequate as it stands. The present definition—"boats and vessels of any description"—is already very wide indeed. But quite apart from that I would refer the noble Lord to subsection (4)(a), which allows the NRA to regulate,
"sailing, boating, bathing and fishing and other forms of recreation".
It is important to stress that. It is hard to think of what could slip through a net cast as wide as that, and I am therefore not convinced that the amendment would add substantially to the scope of the clause.
The noble Lord raised an important point which I should like to answer. We do not deny that the NRA will have to establish that there is a right of way through the courts. It would not be able to decide the matter for itself; nor, as I hope the Committee agrees, should it. As I said on the previous amendment, it is a matter of balance. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, thought that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, went too far. Doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will not be satisfied with my reply. It only serves to convince me, having spoken to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that the Bill has got it about right.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. His prediction about my reaction is, I am afraid, correct, because I think it means that the NRA will be able to control boating on the Wye below Glazebury Bridge, but not above it, which seems to me to be a somewhat absurd situation. I shall have to consider this is due course and see where we go from here.
As these are the last amendments that I shall be moving, I should just like to say how grateful I am to the Government Front Bench for the patience and courtesy with which they have answered all the points I have raised, both last night and this morning. I am very grateful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 398 to 399ZA not moved.]
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clause 154 agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Mineral Rights]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 399A:
Page 282, line 9, leave out "for the purposes of a water or sewerage undertaking").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I should like to move Amendment No. 399A. This is a technical amendment to clarify the definition of land acquired by a relevant body by virtue of powers of compulsory purchase. Any further explanation is most readily assured upon demand. Meantime, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the formula which the noble Earl has found to introduce this amendment. I commend it to him and his colleagues for the remainder of the Committee's business.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 155 [Protection of certain undertakings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 399AB:
Page 154, line 47, after ("them") insert ["or, in the case of paragraph (c) of this subsection, except with the consent of the highway authority,").
The noble Lord said: In moving No. 399AB, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 399AC. In the debate on Amendment No. 387B, the Ministers in replying have dealt to some extent already with the issues with which we are concerned. These amendments are about the inadequacies of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, which, as Ministers said in response to the previous amendment, is already under review, first through the Home Report, which is supposed to review the whole Bill and, in particular, its Recommendation 35; and, secondly, through what I understand to be a consultation document issued by the Department of Transport on 5th May.
So we are conscious that this matter is in play, as they say in the City, at the moment. The inadequacies of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 centre, from the point of view of these amendments, on the inadequate notice which is available to highway authorities of works to be carried out by utilities, and in particular in this case by the water and sewerage undertakers. The present provision under the Act provides that seven days' notice of major works is to be given, and three days' of minor works. There is always provision for emergency works, and that would have to continue.
However, the Home Report recommends that there should be a code of practice stating that a longer period of notice should be given to the highway authority and the police in order to minimise disruption of traffic, particularly in situations, as referred to in Amendment No. 399AC, of important or sensitive traffic routes.
We are conscious of the need for effective powers for the water and sewerage undertakings, but at the same time the needs of traffic are of considerable importance, and a great deal of time and money is lost if there is unnecessary disruption. I hope that these amendments will find approval with the Government and the Committee. I beg to move.
3.30 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Any work in the nature of pipelaying or the breaking open of a street carried out under the Bill will be subject to the provisions of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. I recognise that utilities' work in the highways can cause inconvenience. It was because of concern about the arrangements governing utilities' street works and their costs to the community that the Department of Transport commissioned the Home

353
Report on the review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to that point.
The great majority of the report's recommendations have been accepted, including its principal recommendation that full responsibility for reinstatement of the excavations in the highway should be placed on the utilities themselves. This should help reduce the time taken to complete the work by enabling the utilities to carry out an immediate permanent reinstatement in most cases. Related recommendations have also been accepted, including better co-ordination of streetworks through the establishment of a computerised streetworks register and notification system, improvements in traffic management and improved information for road users. The necessary legislation will be introduced at a suitable opportunity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that the words "suitable opportunity" are not as encouraging as "at an early opportunity" or the other phrases which Ministers use to say that there is no place yet in the legislative programme to introduce a provision. However, the Minister's other words are reasonably encouraging and we have certainly had the confirmation that the Government accept Recommendation 35 of the Home Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 399AC not moved.]
Clause 155 Agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 399B:
After Clause 155, insert the following new clause:
"Duty to move pipes etc. in certain cases

.—(1) Where any relevant pipe or other apparatus is for the time being kept installed by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker on, under or over any land, any person with an interest in that land or in adjacent land may by notice to the undertaker require the undertaker to alter or remove that pipe or apparatus on the ground that the alteration or removal of that pipe or apparatus is necessary to enable that person to carry out a proposed improvement of the land in which he has an interest.

(2) Where a notice is served on a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker under subsection (1) above, it shall be the duty of the undertaker to comply with the requirement contained in the notice except to the extent that that requirement is unreasonable.

(3) Where a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker carries out any works under this section by virtue of a notice having been served by any person under subsection (1) above, the undertaker shall be entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out those works from that person.

(4) The duty of a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker unde this section shall be enforceable under section 20 above by the Director.

(5) In this section—

"improvement", in relation to any land, includes any development or change of use but does not include an improvement with respect to the supply of water or the provision of sewerage services to any premises; and

levant pipe" has the same meaning as in Schedule 18 to this Act.").

The noble Earl said: This new clause places a new but entirely reasonable obligation on an undertaker
354
and enables it to recover its costs in complying. It is modelled on a similar provision in the Telecommunications Act 1984.1 commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 399B, Amendment No. 399C:
In the proposed subsection (2), line 4, after first ("that") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: These two amendments, Nos. 399C and 399D, are small amendments to my noble friend's amendment. I am concerned that Amendment No. 399B looks at the problem almost entirely from the point of view of the landowner. In many cases it may not be possible to alter or remove pipes without its having an adverse effect on the water or sewerage undertaker's functions. My suggested amendment would ensure that the water or sewerage undertaker was not under a duty to move the pipes if it would prejudice the carrying out of its statutory functions or there is no reasonably practicable alternative position in which to place those pipes. It seems totally unreasonable that a water or sewerage undertaker should be placed under a duty to remove pipes without having regard to those factors. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept the proposed amendments to Amendment No. 399B. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The new clause will require a water and sewerage undertaker to comply with a request to alter or to move its pipes to the extent that it is reasonable—and I stress "reasonable"—to do so. We fully accept that there will be circumstances when it will be unreasonable for undertakers to move pipes. This may well include situations such as those my noble friend suggests where the undertaker's ability to carry out its functions would be prejudiced or there is no reasonable practicable alternative. It is for this reason that we have included in the clause a role for the director general.
If an undertaker considers that it would be unreasonable to move a pipe he is able to refuse to do so. The person requesting the pipe to be moved can take up with the director general the undertaker's refusal to do so. The director general would take all the relevant circumstances of the particular case into account in determining the question.
I hope that what I have said reassures my noble friend. We were aware that concerns such as she has raised could be valid unless we made the provision for the director general to take a role if necessary. That is provided for in our amendment, which has been agreed.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend. Those assurances are reasonably clear to me. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 399D not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 399B agreed to.
Clause 156 [Complaints with respect to the exercise of works powers on private land]:
[Amendment No. 400 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 401:
Page 155, line 37, after ("by") insert ("or by virtue of").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 401 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 413 and 414. These are technical amendments to make explicit that the provisions of Clause 156 apply to all aspects of undertakers' powers to lay pipes on private land. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 402 to 412 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 413:
Page 156, line 41, leave out ("the exercise of its powers under") and insert ("its exercise of any powers conferred by or by virtue of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 414:
Page 157, line 1, leave out ("under") and insert ("conferred by or by virtue of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 415 to 418 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 156, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 157 [Saving for planning controls:]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved amendment No. 418A:
Page 157, line 46, at end insert—
("(2) A water undertaker shall require planning permission for any development in, on or under a water course for the improvement of that watercourse for the purpose of any of its functions.".").
The noble said: The aim of this amendment is to protect the natural habitats created by rivers when improvement is proposed by requiring that planning permission be obtained.
Under Class E of Part XVII of Schedule 2 of the general development order of 1988 a water authority does not require planning permission for a development in, on or under any watercourse required in connection with any improvement of that watercourse.
Effectively, an improvement is often merely the straightening of a watercourse which will mean that the river will run faster. That will mean that the natural habitat of certain types of flora and fauna, which are designed to live in slow-moving waters with greater amounts of aquatic plant and animal life, will be removed. I suggest that some form of planning permission should be required as the potential damage to that part of our environment is considerable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Water authorities and statutory water companies benefit from the general permission under the second schedule to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order
356
1988. That order enables them to carry out certain development, including development in, on or under a watercourse, for the purpose of their functions—I stress that point—without the need to obtain planning permission in each individual case. Development permitted under that provision is considered to be the minimum necessary to enable the water authorities and water companies to comply with the need to ensure the satisfactory provision and efficient operation of their water supply service.
After privatisation, water undertakers will be required to meet similar water supply duties. To require them to seek planning permission for each development that they propose to carry out on a watercourse for the purposes of their statutory water supply functions will place an unnecessary barrier to the efficient carrying out of their functions. It is therefore proposed that water undertakers should continue to benefit like public gas suppliers from the provisions of the general development order. In view of what I have said—that the matter is related to the functions—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be reassured.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Once again, I must admit to a slight feeling of worry because I was specifically concerned about wildlife, especially aquatic wildlife. However, I accept that the noble Earl does not in any way wish to duck the responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 157 agreed to.
Clause 158 agreed to.
Clause 159 [Maps of water mains etc.]:
[Amendment No. 419 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 159 agreed to.
Clause 160 [Sewer maps]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 419A:
Page 159, line 45, at end insert—
("(d) of every drain, sewer or disposal main which is not vested in the undertaker and about which the undertaker has information").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 419B. Both amendments are very modest little amendments concerned with the problem of house owners who find themselves in the position of having unadopted sewers on their property. The Government recognise that this is a problem because, in 1986, they issued a consultation paper on sewerage law which recognised the difficulty that people often do not know whether their sewers have been adopted or whether there are unadopted sewers on their property. The problem is that, if there is any damage, they are responsible for it and it may be difficult to insure against any such damage if they have not declared it in advance.
It is also a problem when property changes hands because solicitors, who look out for problems about

357
the purchase, may not know either. We are not putting any extra obligations on the undertakers in these amendments. We are simply saying that, if they know about the unadopted sewers, they should be required to say so and to make the information available. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The responsibility for mapping sewers currently rests with local authorities. The maps are not as comprehensive as they might be and sewerage undertakers are therefore being given 10 years to investigate and record as far as practicable the extent of the public sewerage system. As these records become more comprehensive it will become more straightforward to identify whether or not a sewer is a public sewer and the responsibility of the sewerage undertaker.
I have considerable sympathy with the motive behind the amendment, which is to make it as straightforward as possible for prospective housebuyers to determine whether the sewers serving the property that they intend to buy are public sewers, and therefore the responsibility of the sewerage undertaker, or private and therefore the responsibility of the houseowner. It would however be inappropriate to place a duty on an undertaker to record any information that it has about drains and sewers for which it has not responsibility.
Once the undertakers have completed the mapping requirements placed on them under Clause 160, it will be reasonably safe to assume that if a sewer is not shown on the maps it is not a public sewer and it will be open to an individual wishing to find out more information about a sewer not shown on the map to ask the undertaker whether it has any information. No doubt the undertakers will be pleased to provide any information that they have.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall give that reply due consideration. I thank the noble Lord for it and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 419B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 420 and 421 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 421AZA not moved.]
Clause 160 agreed to.
3.45 a.m.
Clause 161 [Offence of interference with works, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 421ZA:
Page 161, line 23, after ("recklessly") insert ("or negligently").
The noble Baroness said: My name is appended to this amendment also. Water mains are often damaged by people carrying out work such as putting in land drains, etc., above them. People carrying out such work are often unaware of the existence of the water mains under that land. This amendment
358
suggests one solution to the problem. I have suggested another solution in the proposed amendment to Schedule 18: namely, Amendment No. 394CA.
These amendments would provide for any person who damaged a water main without first having inspected maps or water mains held by a water undertaker to be deemed negligent. The water undertaker whose main was damaged would then be able to recover damages from the person causing the damage under Clause 161(5). This amendment would give much needed protection to water mains. If damage was caused to a water main, this amendment would enable the water undertaker to recover damages from the person causing the damage.
More importantly, the purpose of the amendment is not solely to enable the water undeitaker to recover damages but is an attempt to prevent the damage taking place in the first place. The prevention of unnecessary damage and the avoidance of unnecessary repair work is the main intention behind the amendment. It also probes into why it is not an offence to interfere with sewers.
Clause 159 provides for the keeping of maps of water mains. Clause 161 makes it an offence intentionally, recklessly or negligently to interfere with a water undertaker's apparatus. There are often disputes as to whether or not a person is negligent. This amendment provides that a person is deemed to be negligent if he has not checked the map of water mains before carrying out work. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: We considered these offences very carefully when we drafted the Bill. While I appreciate my noble friend's concern, we do not consider that a person who negligently interferes with pipes or apparatus of the NRA or water undertakers but who causes no damage should be guilty of an offence.
We believe that Amendment No. 421ZB is appropriate. It is unreasonable to place a statutory requirement of this kind on landowners before they are able to undertake work on their land. Undertakers concerned to limit the activities carried out on land lying over a pipe are able to designate a sterilised strip of land at the time the pipe is laid. Compensation for any restriction on land use would be paid to the landowner. The undertaker is able to provide a further degree of protection by following the guidelines contained in the model code of practice for pipelaying and permanently marking the line of the pipeline at field boundaries.
Subsection (1)(b) provides for any person who negligently interferes with a pipe and causes damage to be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. It will therefore be in the interests of landowners proposing to undertake work on land in which pipes are laid to take all reasonable steps to determine the location of any pipes that are liable to be affected by the work. We believe that these amendments are unreasonable and I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will see fit to withdraw them.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend will forgive me if I say that I had difficulty in following his remarks.

359
I think that he spoke almost faster than I presented the amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 421ZB not moved.]
Clause 161 agreed to.
Clause 162 agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Water Quality in Scotland]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 421ZC:
Page 285, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
("(4) If he is satisfied that a water authority has failed in any of the duties referred to in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (2) of section 11 unless he is satisfied—").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 421ZC and speak to Amendments Nos. 421ZD, 421ZE, 421C, 421D and 421E.
These are relatively minor amendments necessary either to maintain a common line with England or Wales or to reflect an essential aspect of Scottish practice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 421ZD and 421ZE:
Page 285, line 40, leave out ("agreed to take and are taking") and insert ("given, and are complying with, an undertaking to take").
Page 286, line 9, leave out ("undertaker") and insert ("water authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 421A and 421B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 421C to 421E:
Page 291, line 19, leave out ("without reasonable excuse").
Page 291, line 23, at end insert ("; and it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this subsection to show that he had a reasonable excuse.").
Page 292, line 14, at end insert—
(" "micro-organism" includes any microscopic biological entity which is capable of replication;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 163 agreed to.
Schedule 22 [Control of Pollution in Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 422 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.422ZA:
Page 296, line 46, leave out ("the public") and insert ("life or health").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 422ZA and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 422D, 422E, 422H, 422J, 422K and 422L. These are straightforward amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.422A:
Page 298, line 28, at end insert—
("(8A) In subsection (4) of this section, the reference to the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into controlled waters shall not include a reference to the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of, or of anything done in connection with, the use of any land for agricultural purposes.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 422A and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 422C, 422M and 435L.
These amendments relate to provisions for nitrate sensitive area schemes and are very similar to what we have already discussed and agreed for England and Wales. The position in Scotland is somewhat different in as much as nitrate leaching from agricultural sources does not represent such a problem for drinking water. However, we judge that it would be unwise not to make use of this opportunity and it is better to take advantage of the Bill to secure the enabling powers for control measures even though these might be used more sparingly than in England and Wales.
I would reassure those interested that there will be consultation on the details of the scheme with interests in Scotland, again in parallel to what is happening in England and Wales. As with the powers for England and Wales, the amendments include provisions for voluntary agreements for the procedures for the making of orders introducing compulsory restrictions for a public inquiry to be held if there are objections to proposals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 422B:
Page 298, line 49, after ("purpose") insert ("and to take such precautions and other steps for that purpose").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I beg to move Amendment No. 422B and speak to Amendments Nos. 422F, 422G and 447D. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 422C to 422M:
Page 299, line 20, at end insert—
("Nitrate sensitive areas.
31B.—(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate to do so with a view to achieving the following purpose, that is to say, preventing or controlling the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of, or of anything done in connection with, the use of any land for agricultural purposes, he may by order designate that land, together with any other land to which he considers it appropriate to apply the designation, as a nitrate sensitive area.
(2) Where any area has been designated as a nitrate sensitive area by an order under this section and the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate to do so with a view to achieving the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, he may, subject to such restrictions (if any) as may be set out in the order, enter into an agreement under which, in consideration of payments to be made by him—

(a) the absolute owner (within the meaning of section 93 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949) of any agricultural land in that area; or

361

(b) where any such owner has given his written consent to the agreement being entered into by any person having another interest in that land, that the person,

accepts such obligations with respect to the management of that land or otherwise as may be imposed by the agreement.
(3) An agreement such as is mentioned in subsection (2) above between the Secretary of State and a person having an interest in any land shall bind all persons deriving title from or under that person to the extent that the agreement is expressed to bind that land in relation to those persons.
(4) Where it appears to the Secretary of State in relation to any area which is, or is to be, designated by an order under this section as a nitrate sensitive area that it is appropriate for provision for the imposition of requirements, prohibitions or restrictions to be contained in an order under this section (as well as for him to be able to enter into such agreements as are mentioned in subsection (2) above), he may, by a subsequent order under this section or, as the case may be, by the order designating that area—

(a) with a view to achieving the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, require, prohibit or restrict the carrying on or in relation to any agricultural land in that area of such activities as may be specified or described in the order; and

(b) provide for such amounts (if any) as may be specified in or determined under the order to be paid by the Secretary of State, to such persons an may be so specified or determined, in respect of the obligations imposed in relation to that area on those persons by virtue of paragraph (a) above.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, provision contained in an order under this section by virtue of that subsection may—

(a) confer power upon the Secretary of State to determine for the purposes of the order the circumstances in which the carrying on of any activities is required, prohibited or restricted and to determine the activities to which any such requirement, prohibition or restriction applies;

(b) provide for any requirement to carry on any activity not to apply in cases where the Secrtary of State has consented to a failure to carry on that activity and any conditions on which the consent has been given are complied with;

(c) apply a prohibition or restriction in respect of any activities to cases where the activities are carried on without the consent of the Secretary of State or in contravention of any conditions subject to which any such consent is given;

(d) provide that a contravention of a requirement, prohibition or restriction contained in the order or in a condition of a consent given in relation to or for the purposes of any such requirement, prohibition or restriction shall be an offence the maximum penalties for which shall not exceed the maximum penalties specified in subsection (7) of section 31 above;

(e) provide for amounts paid in pursuance of any provision contained in the order to be repaid at such times and in such circumstances and with such interest as may be specified in or determined under the order;

(f) provide (subject to any regulations under subsection (7) below) for anything falling to be determined under the order by any person to be determined in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons as may be specified in the order.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section except in accordance with any applicable provisions of Schedule 1A to this Act.
(7) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of any orders under this section which require his consent to the carrying on of any activities or to any failure to carry on any activity, by regulations make provision with respect to—

(a) applications for any such consent;

(b) the conditions of any such consent;

(c) the revocation or variation of any such consent;

(d) the reference to arbitration of disputes about determinations on any such application;

(e) the imposition of charges where such an application has been made, such a consent has been given or there has been any act or omission in pursuance of any such consent; and

(f) the registration of any such application or consent.

Registering of agreement
31C.—(1) An agreement under subsection (2) of section 31B above may—

(a) where the land is registered in the Land Register of Scotland, be registered in that register;

(b) in any other case, be recorded in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

(2) An agreement registered or recorded under subsection (1) above shall be enforceable at the instance of the Secretary of State against persons deriving title to the land (including any person acquiring right to a tenancy by assignation or succession) from the person who entered into the agreement; provided that such an agreement shall not be enforceable against a third party who shall have in good faith and for value acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being registered or recorded as aforesaid, or against any person deriving title from such third party.
(3) Nowithstanding the terms of any agreement registered or recorded under subsection (1) above, the parties to the agreement or any persons deriving title from them may at any time agree to terminate it; and such an agreement to terminate it shall be registered or recorded in the same manner as was the original agreement.
Powers of entry in relation to agreements under section 31B
31D. The powers which by virtue of subsection (1) of section 91 of this Act are conferred in relation to any premises for the purpose—

(a) of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether or in what manner to exercise any power conferred on him by or under section 31B of this Act or to determine whether any provision of an order under that section is being or has been contravened; or

(b) of enabling a river purification authority to determine whether to make an application for the purpose of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1A to this Act,

shall include power, in order to obtain information on which that determination may be made, to carry out experimental borings or other works on those premises and to install and keep monitoring and other apparatus there.").
Page 300, line 28, leave out ("the public") and insert ("life or health").
Page 309, line 10, leave out from ("means") to end of line 11 and insert ("31st January 1985').
Page 311, line 41, after first ("of") insert ("the provisions of").
Page 313, line 13, after ("practice") insert ("as").
Page 313, line 27, leave out ("or for the modification of, or of the conditions of, any such consent").
Page 315, line 41, at end insert—
(""micro-organism" includes any microscopic biological entity which is capable of replication;").
Page 315, line 44, at end insert—
(""substance" includes micro-organisms and any natural or artificial substance or other matter, whether it is in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour;").
Page 316, line 22, after second ("be") insert ("(and, in the case of fish farms, always to have been)").
Page 316, line 42, at end insert—
("6A. After Schedule 1 there shall be inserted the following Schedule—
"SCHEDULE 1A ORDERS DESIGNATING NITRATE SENSITIVE AREAS: SCOTLAND
PART I APPLICATIONS BY RIVER PURIFICATION AUTHORITIES FOR DESIGNATION ORDERS
Orders made only on application
1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Secretary of State shall not make an order under section 31B of this Act by virtue of which any land is designated as a nitrate sensitive area, except with the consent of the Treasury and on an application which—

(a) has been made by a river purification authority in accordance with paragraph 2 below; and

363

(b) by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) of that paragraph identifies the controlled waters with respect to which that land is so comprised by the order.

(2) This paragraph shall not apply to an order which reproduces or amends an existing order without adding any land appearing to the Secretary of State to constitute a significant area to the land already comprised in the areas for the time being designated as nitrate sensitive areas.
Procedure for applications
2.—(1) A river purification authority shall not, for the purposes of paragraph 1 above, apply for the making of any order under section 3 1B of this Act, by which any land would be comprised in the areas for the time being designated as nitrate sensitive areas unless it appears to the authority—

(a) that pollution is or is likely to be caused by the entry of nitrate into controlled waters as a result of, or of anything done in connection with, the use of particular land for agricultural purposes; and

(b) that the provisions for the time being in force in relation to those waters and that land are not sufficient, in the opinion of the authority, for preventing or controlling such an entry of nitrate into those waters.

(2) An application under this paragraph shall identify—

(a) the controlled waters appearing to the authority to be the waters which the nitrate is entering or is likely to enter; and

(b) the land appearing to the authority to be the land the use of which for agricultural purposes, or the doing of anything in connection with whose use for agricultural purposes, is resulting or is likely to result in the entry of nitrate into those waters.

(3) An application under this paragraph shall be made by serving a notice containing the application on the Secretary of State.

Part II ORDERS CONTAINING MANDATORY PROVISIONS ETC.
Publication of proposal for order containing mandatory provisions—
3.—(1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order under section 31B of this Act which—

(a) makes or modifies any such provision as is authorised by subsection (4)(a) of that section; and

(b) in doing so, contains provision which is not of one of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(i) provision reproducing existing provisions without modification and in relation to substantially the same area; and

(ii) provision modifying any existing provisions so as to make them less onerous.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, before making any such order as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) publish a notice with respect to the proposed order at least once in each of two successive weeks, in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in relation to which the proposed order will have effect;

(b) not later than the date on which that notice is first published, serve a copy of the notice on the river purification authority and on every local authority whose area includes the whole or any part of that locality; and

(c) publish a notice in the Edinburgh Gazette which—

(i) names every local authority on whom a notice is required to be served under this paragraph;

(ii) specifies a place where a copy of the proposed order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected; and

(iii) gives the name of every newspaper in which the notice required by virtue of paragraph (a) above was published and the date of an issue containing the notice.

(3) The notice required by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above to be published with respect to any proposed order shall—

(a) state the general effect of the proposed order;

364

(b) specify a place where a copy of the proposed order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times during the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the first publication of the notice; and

(c) state that any person may, within that period, by notice to the Secretary of State object to the making of the order.

Supply of copies of proposed orders
4. The Secretary of State shall, at the request of any person and on payment by that person of such charge (if any) as the Secretary of State may reasonably require, furnish that person with a copy of any proposed order of which notice has been published under paragraph 3 above.
Modifications of proposals
5.—(1) Where notices with respect to any proposed order have been published and served in accordance with paragraph 3 above and the period of twenty-eight days mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph has expired, the Secretary of State may make the order either in the proposed terms or, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below (but without any further compliance with paragraph 3 above), in those terms as modified in such manner as he thinks fit, or may decide not to make any order.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make such a modification of a proposed order of which notice has been so published and served as he considers is likely adversely to affect any persons unless he has given such notices as he considers appropriate for enabling those persons to object to the modification.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above and to the service of notices of the proposed modification on such local authorities as appear to him to be likely to be interested in it, the modifications that may be made by the Secretary of State include any modification of the area designated by the proposed order as a nitrate sensitive area.
Consideration of objections etc.
6. Without prejudice to section 96 of this Act, where notices with respect to any proposed order have been published and served in accordance with paragraph 3 above, the Secretary of State may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, hold a local inquiry before deciding whether or not to make the proposed order or to make it with modifications.
Consent of Treasury for payment provisions
7. The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the making of any order under section 31B of this Act the making of which does not require the consent of the Treasury by virtue of paragraph 1 above but which contains any such provision as is authorised by subsection (4)(b) of that section.
8. In this Part, "local authority" means a regional, islands or district council." ").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are all consequential. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 164 [Directions in the interests of national security etc.]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 423:
Page 163, line 44, after ("likely") insert ("in relation to any area").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 423 is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 165 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 423A:
After Clause 165, insert the following new clause:
("Indemnities in respect of fluoridation
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, agree to indemnify any statutory water undertaker in respect of such of any of the following as he thinks fit, that is to say—

(a) liabilities incurred by the undertaker in connection with anything done by the undertaker for the purpose of increasing the fluoride content of any water supplied by the undertaker;

(b) costs or expenses which are incurred by the undertaker, or for which the undertaker is liable, in connection with any proceedings which have been or may be brought by any person with respect to—

(i) things done for the purpose of increasing the fluoride content of any water; or
(ii) a proposal to increase the fluoride content of any water;

(c) expenditure incurred by the undertaker in complying with an order made in any such proceedings;

(d) liabilities transferred to the undertaker in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 or 5 to this Act which, in relation to the person from whom they were transferred, were liabilities falling within paragraph (a) above or liabilities in respect of costs, expenses or other expenditure mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) or (c) above.

(2) In this section "statutory water undertaker" means—

(a) any water undertaker or, in relation to any time before the transfer date, any water authority or any statutory water company within the meaning of the 1973 Act; or

(b) any water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 423A I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 453. This is a new clause which will give a statutory power to enable the Secretary of State for Health to indemnify water undertakers against costs or expenses incurred in connection with increasing the fluoride content of drinking water. It does not specify the exact terms of the indemnity which is being negotiated with the water industry and, as shown in the preamble to the clause, must be agreeable to the Treasury. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I believe that I am not alone in viewing this amendment with serious misgivings. I believe that any measure which makes the fluoridation of further water supplies more likely should be resisted. This amendment would have that effect.
I shall be brief since this is not the occasion for a full dress review of the arguments against fluoridation. The freedom issue comes first. To treat a person against his or her will, which is what happens to many when a substance is put in the water supply, is a quite unjustified infringement of personal liberty. In terms of basic medical ethics I still find it hard to believe that the dental and medical professions should have given their backing to such a thing. Further than that, it is surely proper practice for doctors or dentists to control the dose that they give their patients. One milligram per litre is not a dose; it is a concentration. Those who drink more will get more fluoride in their bodies. That is inevitable.
Some of us were fortunate the other evening to hear a talk in one of the committee rooms from a distinguished dentist, Dr. Colquhoun, who had been
366
in the forefront of the fluoridation campaign in New Zealand and who changed his mind after a world study tour and a hard look at the research findings. I had known for some time about the dangers of fluoride even at low concentrations and of the manifold symptoms that it can produce which are very hard to detect except by those who are alerted to it, who know exactly what to look for and who do not have a particular case to make.
The notion that fluoride can target one's teeth without affecting any other part of the body is curious. What I had not realised was the weakness of the case for any claimed benefits in the reduction of dental decay. Here we are in the realm of the interpretation of statistics. Dr. Colquhoun is not the only expert to claim that the way the case for fluoridation has been presented has been seriously misleading. Two facors to be aware of are that caries is in decline in any event for reasons that have nothing to do with fluoride and that there are plenty of instances of better teeth being found in non-fluoridated areas than in fluoridated.
Add to this the fact that it is common ground that fluoride has no benefits for teeth once they are fully formed—that is, after the age of puberty—and one can understand why water companies are chary of being involved in such an enterprise without the promise of indemnity if something goes wrong. There is something strange in the Government talking here of indemnities concerning a substance which they have always argued was free of risk. It does not quite add up.
As a taxpayer, I do not welcome the possibility of public money being made available in such a cause. Fluoridation is expensive and unethical. It is also harmful. While I would not want to press matters at this stage, I would ask the Government at least to think again on this afterthought of an amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, who unfortunately cannot be here at this hour of the morning since he is due in his practice at 8.30 for an extraction. He has asked me to thank my noble friend the Minister for moving the amendment and to say how much he supports it. It is very unlikely that the indemnity will be used, since fluoridation has been used in this country since the mid-1950s and has been shown to be perfectly safe. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Trafford: I wish to add my support for the amendment, which I think is a good one. I personally reject the evidence given and comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, as I think the case for fluoridation has been well proven on a number of scores. I therefore support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 166 agreed to.
4 a.m.
Clause 167 [General restrictions on disclosure of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 424 and 425 had been wihdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 426,427, 428 and 429:
Page 165, line 29, after ("Supply;") insert—
("( ) the Director General of Electricity Supply;").
Page 165, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, of any functions under a relevant statutory provision, within the meaning of that Act;").
Page 165, line 47, leave out ("or the Health and Safety Executive of any of his or its") and insert ("of any of his").
Page 166, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) the Electricity Act 1989;").
The noble Lord said: These are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 430 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 167, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 168 to 170 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 430A:
Before Clause 171, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of Entry.
.—(1) Where any right of entry is conferred on a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker by any of the provisions of this Act the following provisions of this section shall apply.
(2) Admission to any premises shall not be demanded as of right (except in an emergency) unless 24 hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.
(3) In this section references to an emergency includes

(a) any danger to persons or property;

(b) any interruption of a supply of water provided to any premises;

(c) any interruption of the provision of sewerage services to any premises; and

(d) the possibility of contamination, waste or misuse of water.".

The noble Baroness said: I apologise as the explanation will be a little lengthy but I shall present it as quickly as possible. There are various provisions relating to powers of entry in the Bill. For example, there are provisions in Clause 64 relating to the powers of entry in respect of water supplies, provisions in Clause 143 relating to the NRA, general provisions in Clauses 171 and 172, provisions relating to drought in Clause 129(6), provisions relating to meter readings in Schedule 10, paragraph 1 and provisions relating to laying of mains and sewers in Schedule 18, paragraph 10. There are inconsistencies and anomolies in these various provisions.
In tabling the amendment I am concerned to ensure that, first, whenever there is a possibility of danger to persons or property, a possibility of any interruption to the supply of water provided to any premises, a possibility of any interruption of the provision of sewerage services to any premises or the possibility of contamination, waste or misuse of water, the undertaker has the right to enter premises immediately and without giving notice to the owner or occupier.
Secondly, I wish to ensure that a water undertaker is able to read a water meter without giving advance
368
notice of his intention to the occupier. I shall outline some of the various anomolies contained within the Bill. In the case of contamination, waste or misuse of water, Clause 64 provides that, except in an emergency, no person shall make an entry into any premises to take steps to prevent contamination, waste or misuse of water unless seven days' notice has been given to the occupier. There is no definition of emergency. This amendment would make clear that an emergency includes any circumstances involving the possibility of contamination, waste or misuse of water.
It is in the public interest that water undertakers have immediate access to premises where there is a possibility of contamination of water. If someone is misusing water—for example, using a sprinkler without a licence—it is obviously not appropriate for the undertaker to give advance notice of his intention to visit the premises because the person would obviously not use the sprinkler on the day of inspection.
One of the grounds for obtaining a warrant of entry under Clause 171 is when an application for admission to premises would defeat the object of the proposed entry. The Minister may argue that if a water undertaker wishes to check whether someone is, for example, using a sprinkler, he should obtain a warrant of entry. However, that is not practical on a large scale check as to the use of sprinklers.
In a case of drought, Clause 129(6) provides that every drought order shall contain a provision requiring the water undertaker or the NRA to give not less than 24 hours notice of the intended entry to land. There is no provision for immediate entry in the case of emergency. Obviously in a drought situation, time is short but there will be no provision for immediate entry in the event of drought. This amendment would treat a drought situation where there is a threat of interruption to the water supply as an emergency and, therefore, notice of entry need not be given.
In the case of meter reading, Schedule 10(1)(b) to the Bill provides that a water undertaker shall not enter the premises for the purposes of meter reading unless seven days' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier. It is obviously impractical for a water undertaker to give an occupier seven days' notice in advance of meter reading. The power of entry provisions in Schedule 10 do not distinguish between entry for the purpose of carrying out works and entry for the purpose of meter reading. It is appropriate for undertakers to give seven days' notice for carrying out work on premises but routine meter reading should be in a separate category and advance notice should not be required.
Subsection (2) of the amendment provides that admission to any premises should not be demanded as a right unless 24 hours notice of entry had been given. That wording is based on a similar provision in the Water Act 1945. There is obviously a difference between saying that admission shall not be demanded as a right, as my amendment proposes, and the provision as Schedule 10 to the Water Bill at present provides that an undertaker shall not enter

369
except after giving seven days, notice of intended entry.
This is a probing amendment because it is not possible to tackle all the problems of the power of entry provisions in one amendment. However, I have highlighted some problems as regards the power of entry provisions in the Bill. I should not expect my noble friend to incorporate this amendment into the Bill as it stands but I ask him to confirm that he will look at the problems which I have highlighted and consider adopting my suggested amendment and applying it to the various powers of entry provisions in the Bill or—which would perhaps be even better—putting one composite power of entry provision into the Bill.
Water and sewerage undertakers and the NRA will often be asked under what power they are proposing to enter premises. It will obviously be more convenient if there were to be one power of entry provision in the Bill rather than the numerous provisions which there are at present scattered around the Bill.
In relation to the powers of entry, the Water Bill is obviously a composite of the present policies of legislation, and the opportunity has not been taken to draw together the various strands relating to powers of entry. I should like to see the various strands drawn together. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The Bill provides powers of entry as of right to private property only where those powers are essential for undertakers to fulfil their statutory functions. Proper safeguards are provided for occupiers of premises in terms of the requirements for notice to be served, and for entry to be exercised at a reasonable time.
There are also the new stipulations that an appropriate authorisation is produced by an officer exercising the power of entry whether or not the occupier has asked to see it and that anyone impersonating an officer is liable to be found guilty of a criminal offence.
In most cases the Bill requires undertakers to give seven days notice to the occupier of the premises concerned. The exceptions are where undertakers are checking on the wholesomeness of drinking water or enforcing regulations to prevent contamination of the water supply, where we consider 24 hours notice is justified. I am sure Members of the Committee will agree a shorter notice period is apt in these particular circumstances. Generally, however, I do not see that it is appropriate for undertakers to have the right to enter private premises after serving such a short period of notice.
In real emergencies, where property or premises are endangered perhaps by interruptions to supply caused by burst pipes, or contamination, the appropriate clauses of the Bill already provide for immediate entry to remedy the situation. Otherwise Clause 171 provides for immediate entry to premises when a justice's warrant is obtained. This might, for example, be in situations the noble Baroness might define as emergencies, where misuse of water is suspected and the serving of a notice would defeat the object of the proposed entry. But entry would
370
not be as of right. A magistrate would need to be satisfied first that entry was justified in the particular circumstances. This is a useful and practical control, very much in line with police procedures as noble Lords will recognise.
The granting to privatised utilities of rights of entry to private properties is a matter deserving serious consideration. In preparing the Bill we have been careful to ensure that they are justified by the seriousness of the breach of the law to which they relate. Our guiding principle has been that the inconvenience and disruption caused to occupiers of premises must be outweighted by the necessary benefit to public health and safety.
I believe the Bill's provisions strike the right balance. For non-critical matters, occupiers will be given seven days notice, which we regard as reasonable, before entry can be obtained to their premises without their consent. As I have outlined, adequate provision is already made for immediate entry in emergencies or where offences are suspected to be being committed. The new clause proposed by my noble friend is therefore unnecessary in some respects and I hope that she will agree to pursue it no further.
Baroness Blatch: I have often contemplated a speed reading course, but I shall go in for a speed listening course. I will read that reply with great interest and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 171 [Warrant to exercise power]:
[Amendments Nos. 431 and 432 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 171 agreed to.
Clause 172 [Provisions supplementary to powers of entry etc]:
[Amendment No. 432A not moved.]
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clauses 173 to 177 agreed to.
Clause 178 [Powers to make regulations]:
[Amendment No. 433 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 178 agreed to.
Clause 179 agreed to.
Schedule 23 [Procedure relating to Byelaws]:
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 434:
Page 317, line 4, after ("Gazette") insert ("and in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area to which the byelaw is to apply").
The noble Lord said: Under Schedule 23, the procedure relating to by-laws:
"A relevant body shall, at least one month before it applies for the confirmation of any byelaw … cause a notice of its intention to make the application to be published in the London Gazette and in such other manner as it considers appropriate".
The Inland Waterways Association in particular relies on local bodies and individual members to

371
spot proposals in local newspapers. Publication of notices just in the London Gazette in respect of applications for confirmation of by-laws is thus likely to be missed. It also appears to be contrary to the usual practice. This amendment requires publication in local newspapers where the by-law is to apply. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment would have the seemingly entirely innocuous effect of ensuring that an intention to promote a by-law should be advertised in the local area affected by it, via local newspapers. There is a technical objection to accepting the amendment as it stands; namely, that some areas do not have local newspapers. That is why provisions aimed at local publicity generally refer only to "newspapers circulating within the area affected".
However, the essential objection to accepting it is a much more substantial one. Substantial it may be, but brief I shall be. By-laws relating to, let us say, angling or canoeing, would be likely to affect people well outside the area local to the stretch of river concerned. The local interest might, indeed, be quite marginal in some cases. The most effective way of reaching the target audience might, therefore, be through the appropriate special-interest magazines, for instance. Advertisements in local newspapers could be a waste of money.
One has to remember that this schedule relates also, among other things, to the NRA's powers under Clause 110 to make by-laws controlling pollution from boats. Boat owners do not always live in the locality of the harbour or marina affected by such by-laws, so again a duty always to use local newspapers would be an onerous and wasteful one. The existing provision in this schedule therefore quite rightly leaves it up to the discretion of the NRA, as well as the undertakers, to decide what is the best means of ensuring that those likely to be affected are alerted to a proposed by-law. Naturally, they will use the local press where appropriate. On that basis, I hope I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Greenway: I note the noble Earl's objections to the amendment. At this stage I will do no more than ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 23 agreed to.
Clauses 180 and 181 agreed to.
4.15 a.m.
Clause 182 [General interpretation]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 434A:
Pasge 175, line 4, at end insert—
(" "container" in relation to water analysis means a clean and sterile container of any other description;").
The noble Earl said: This is a fairly simple amendment. Under Clause 144, which is concerned with water analysis, the water to be analysed has to be divided three ways and put into a container. I could find nothing in the Bill to describe the kind of
372
container. It seemed obvious to me that the container had to be sterile. The analysis of water is a very precise science. I have endeavoured to describe it here and to put it in this part of the Bill where the definitions are. I perceive that my amendment is in fact faulty because I say a,
"container of any other description".
That would be quite unsuitable. For instance, if water was put into a sterile lead container it would still take up the lead and that would not be suitable. I think that is probably of importance. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: There is no need to explicitly require that these containers be clean and sterile, for if they are not clean and sterile they clearly cannot be used for analysis because they would contaminate the samples. And clearly in such circumstances the court will be unlikely to rely on the evidence. Any evidence would of course by challenged on these grounds. In any case, the Water Resources Act 1963—which currently imposes a similar requirement on the water authorities to divide in three and seal in containers those samples which the authorities may use in prosecutions—contains no definition of container and makes no mention of the need for containers to be clean and sterile. I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: That is a totally unsatisfactory answer. That is precisely why I tabled this amendment—so that there would not be particles and that kind of thing in it. That is the whole point of the amendment. Though I shall withdraw the amendment, I shall certainly bring it forward again because the whole analysis performance in this Bill seems to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. As my noble friend realises, I have had a great deal of experience—I am a large fish farmer—of people coming and analysing water. They live with it practically every day. I can assure my noble friend that it is very important that the matter is dealt with properly and that it is not left to the courts to guess whether or not there were particles floating about. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, I shall most certainly bring it forward again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 435 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled list.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 43 5A and 435B:
Page 179, line 2, after ("tunnel") insert ("or conduit").
Page 179, line 5, after ("tunnel") insert ("or conduit").
The noble Lord said: These are both technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 435C not moved.]
Clause 182, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 183 agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 435D:
Page 318, line 41, leave out ("section 6 of").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 435E, 435F, 435H, 435J, 435K and 435M, 436, 436B, 436D, 436E, 438A, 438B, 438C, 438E, 438F, 438G and 438H. These are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 435E:
Page 319, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority, a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker shall be deemed to be a statutory company for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.
( ) The references in the Civil Defence Act 1939 to public utility undertakers do not include references to the Authority or to any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker and, accordingly, references in that Act to a public utility undertaking do not include references to the undertaking of the Authority or of such an undertaker.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 435F:
Page 319, line 41, leave out ("National Rivers").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 435G:
Page 320, line 34, at end insert—
("The Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 (c. 38)
3A. In section 16 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 (definition of nuisance), in the proviso, after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(c) paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall not apply in relation to the supply of water for domestic purposes within the meaning of section 7 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980."").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 436A, 436C and 438D. These are minor and consequential amendments to existing enactments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 435H, 435J, 435K, 435L, 435M, 436, 436A, 436B, 436C, 436D, 436E and 438A:
Page 321, line 19, after ("authority") insert (", in the first place where they occur,").
Page 322, line 47, at end insert—
("The Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945 (c. 43)
6A. In section 17(1) of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945 (publication of proposed orders relating to highways)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after the word "water," there shall be inserted the word "sewerage,"; and

(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(bb) to be sent to the National Rivers Authority where the National Rivers Authority has any mains or pipes laid along, across, over or under any such highways as aforesaid; and".").
Page 323, line 36, leave out ("from").
Page 325, line 6, at end insert—
("Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 75)
9A. In section 28 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (Land Court may grant a certificate of failure to fulfil responsibilities to farm in accordance with rules of good husbandry) at the end there shall be added the words—
"Provided that in determining whether to grant a certificate under this section, the Land Court shall disregard any practice adopted by the tenant in compliance with any obligation imposed on him by or accepted by him under section 31B of the Control of Pollution Act 1974."").
Page 325, line 13, after first ("incurred") insert ("by").
Page 325, line 22, at end insert—
("The Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (c. 39)
10A. In section 39(1) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (interpretation), in the definition of "sewer authority", for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the words "the person".").
Page 325, line 31, at end insert—
("The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 (c. 66)
12A. In section 18(6) and section 19(3) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, for the words from "tidal waters" to "an authority" there shall be substituted the words "controlled waters within the meaning of section 30A of the Control of Pollution Act 1974" and for the word "authority's" there shall be substituted the words "river purification authority's".").
Page 326, line 13, at end insert—
("The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (c. 26)
14A. Section 6(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (which makes provision as to access to sewers and other apparatus) shall have effect as if the references to water undertakers included references to the Authority, a water undertaker and a sewerage undertaker.").
Page 326, line 18, at end insert—
("The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (c, 60)
15A. In section 22A of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (exemption of certain fishings from rates) in subsection (1)(c)(ii) for the words from "paragraph 1(a)" onwards there shall be substituted the words "section 28(3)(a) of tha: Act".").
Page 332, line 39, after second ("undertakers") insert ("are").
Page 332, line 41, leave out ("undertaker") and insert ("a watr undertaker is").
Page 333, line 37, after ("(c)") insert ("the National Rivers Authority or").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are all consequential upon previous amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 437 and 438 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 438AB:
Page 334, line 6, at end insert—
" . In section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (determination of applications) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A)(1) Before granting planning permission for any development which, in their opinion, is likely to give rise to a need for the provision of water or sewerage services for that development a local planning authority shall consult the relevant water undertaker and the relevant sewerage undertaker.
(2) Where under this subsection a local planning authority are required to consult a relevant water undertaker or a relevant sewerage undertaker before granting planning permission—

(i) they shall, unless an applicant has served a copy of an application for planning permission on the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker, give notice of the application to the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker; and

375

(ii) they shall not determine the application until at least 14 days after the date on which notice is given under paragraph (i), or if earlier, 14 days after the date of service of a copy of the application on the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker by the applicant.

(3) The local planning authority shall, in determining the application, take into account any representations relating to the provision of water or sewerage services received from the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to place local planning authorities under a statutory duty to consult water and sewerage undertakers before granting planning permission for any development which is likely to give rise to a need for the provision of water or sewerage services. Local planning authorities are required to consult with a variety of bodies before determining a planning application. Details are listed in the amendment.
There are six categories of development in respect of which a local planning authority is required to consult a water authority. But all the categories listed in the 1988 general development order relate to interests which will pass to the NRA and not to the water and sewerage undertaker. There is no statutory requirement at present on local planning authorities to consult water authorities in respect of proposed development in their capacity as water or sewerage undertakers. This amendment is an attempt to fill that loophole.
If this amendment is not accepted, there would in future be no requirement on a local planning authority to consult a water or sewerage undertaker. A water or sewerage undertaker would not be aware of the planning application and would therefore not have a chance to make any comments on it. A local planning authority should consult a water undertaker and sewerage undertaker before granting planning permission for any development which will require water or sewerage services. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I can understand my noble friend's concern but I must say to her that her amendment would involve additional and unnecessary bureaucracy. This is something which she would not favour. It would offer scope for all planning applications likely to give rise to the provision of water or sewerage services, or both, to be referred to the water and sewerage undertaker concerned.
There are more than 600,000 planning applications per year in England, many of which involve development requiring water or sewerage services. Local planning authorities should decide how best to publicise and seek views on individual planning applications and should consult water and sewerage undertakers where that seems necessary. For their part, water and sewerage undertakers should have regard to the provisions of structure plans and local plans in planning their own investment, and their view will be relevant in formulating policy in these plans. My noble friend will be aware of Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which obliges planning authorities in determining planning applications to have regard to the development planned for their
376
area and to all other material considerations. There is usually a very good relationship between the undertaker and the planning authority. I am sure that that will continue in the future.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 438B to 438H and 441A:
Page 335, line 38, leave out from ("includes") to ("waters") in line 40 and insert ("land covered with waters where the land is above the low-water mark of ordinary spring tides and the waters are not inland").
Page 337, line 18, at end insert—
("The Coal Industry Act 1975 (c. 56)
41 A. Paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 1 to the Coal Industry Act 1975 (supplementary provisions relating to right to withdraw support) shall have affect as if the reference to a company or other body or person carrying on an undertaking primarily for the supply of water for public purposes or to members of the public included a reference to the Authority, a water undertaker and a sewerage undertaker.").
Page 338, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) In section 65 of that Act (power of council to make charging order)—

(a) in subsection (1) after the words "Register of Sasines" there shall be added the words "or registering it in the Land Register of Scotland, as the case may be;

(b) in subsection (3) after the words "Register of Sasines" there shall be inserted the words "or register in it in the Land Register of Scotland, as the case may be;

(c) in subsection (4) after the words "Register of Sasines" there shall be inserted the words "or (as the case may be) in the Land Register of Scotland in a case where the interest in land affected by the order is registered in that Register";

(d) in subsection (5) after the words "Register of Sasines" there shall be inserted the words "or registered in the Land Register of Scotland, as the case may be"

(e) in subsection (6) after the words "Register of Sasines" there shall be inserted the words "or registered in the Land Register of Scotland, as the case may be";

(f) in subsection (9) at the end there shall be added the words "and shall, on request, be entitled to receive a discharge in respect of the redemption which may be registered notwithstanding its form, in the Register of Sasines or Land Register of Scotland, as the case may.";

(g) in subsection (10) after the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "or discharge".").

Page 339, line 19, at end insert—
("(a) after paragraph 17 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"17A. the National Rivers Authority"; and (b)").
Page 340, line 29, leave out ("254(4)(a) of that Act (drainage of highway into watercourse),") and insert ("254(4) of that Act (drainage of highway into watercourse)—

(a) in paragraph (a),").

Page 340, line 32, at end insert ("and

(b) in paragraph (b), after the word "culvert," there shall be inserted the word "sewer,".").

Page 343, line 6, at end insert—
("The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (C. 27)
59a. In paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (buildings in relation to which a Secretary of State is the appropriate authority for the purposes of section 74 of that Act), for the words "a water authority or by a statutory water company as defined in section 38 of the Water Act 1973" there shall be substituted the words "the National Rivers Authority, a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker".").
Page 344, line 25, at end insert—
("The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5)
64A. In Part II of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act ]1986—

(a) In paragraph 9 (provisions applicable to Case C—failure to farm in accordance with rules of good husbandry), after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(3) In determining whether to grant a certificate under this paragraph, the Tribunal shall disregard any practice adopted by the tenant in compliance with any obligation accepted by or imposed on the tenant under section (nitrate sensitive areas) of the Water Act 1989."; and

(b) in each of paragraphs 10 and 11 (provisions applicable to Cases D and E), after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(3) For the purposes of that Case compliance with any obligation accepted by or imposed on the tenant under section (nitrate sensitive areas) of the Water Act 1989 shall not be capable of constituting a breach by the tenant of the terms or conditions of his tenancy." ").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are all consequential on previously agreed amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 439 to 443 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 444 and 445:
Page 345, line 45, leave out from ("is") to end of line 46 and insert ("or who has been (whether before, on or after the transfer date) chairman or member of a water authority.").
Page 346, line 45, leave out ("to or in respect of an officer or employee for any other reason") and insert ("for any other reason to or in respect of any person who holds or has held any such office or employment as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph.").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are technical and are intended to ensure that all those with entitlements receive them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 445A:
Page 349, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) So much of any local statutory provision, other than a provision applying or modifying the effect of the said section 39, as has the effect, immediately before the transfer date, that there are different requirements as to the pressure of water in a water main or other pipe of a water authority or statutory water company from those imposed by section 51 of this Act, shall have effect, on and after that date, as if it were contained (in so far as it would qualify the duty imposed by that section) in an order made under subsection (4) of that section in relation to the water undertaker in which that main or other pipe is vested on that date.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 445A. This is a technical amendment to include in the provision pressure requirements contained in any other local statutory provision.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl of ArranThe Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 445B and 445C:
Page 351, line 25, after ("if") insert—

("(a)").

Page 351, line 28, at end insert ("and

(b) any reference in the arrangements to any enactment which is repealed by this Act and to which any provision made by this Act corresponds were a reference to the corresponding provision of this Act.").

The noble Earl said: These are straightforward technical amendments which I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 446 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 446A and 446B not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447:
Page 353, line 8, at end insert—
(' ( ) Where any notice served, consent given, reference to arbitration made or other thing done under any provision of Schedule 1 to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 (provisions with respect to meters) is in force or effective immediately before the transfer date, that notice, consent, reference or other thing shall have effect on and after that date—

(a) as if it had been served, given, made or done under the corresponding provision of Schedule 10 to this Act; and

(b) in so far as it was served, given, made or done by or in relation to a water authority, as if it had been served, given, made or done by or in relation to that authority's successor company.").

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 447. This is a technical amendment which I commend to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447A:
Page 369, line 8, leave out ("section 43 of the said Act of 1967") and insert—

("(a) section 19 of the said Act of 1967 Act (general rule as to ascertainment of rateable value) shall have effect as if the reference in the definition of "non-industrial building" in that section to premises forming part;, and taken into account in the valuation for rating purposes, of a water undertaking included a reference to any such premises transferred in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act to the Authority or a successor company; and

(b) section 43 of that Act").

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this technical amendment is to clarify the rating position under the General Rate Act 1967 of water hereditaments which are to be transferred to the successor companies and the NRA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447B:
Page 371, line 9, at end insert—

("17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 36

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.

In section 25(1), in the definition of "statutory company", the word "water,".").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 44 7B I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 447C, 447H and 447K. These are all technical amendments to Schedule 26 of the Bill which repeals provisions in various enactments which are no longer required as a result of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 447C, 447D, 447E, 447F, 447G, 447H and 447K:
Page 379, line 16, column 3, after ("(2)") insert ("(a) and (b)").
Page 379, line 25, in column 3 at end insert ("In section 104, in subsection (2) the words "or 53", subsection (3).").
Page 383, line 39, column 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line 40 and insert ("109, in subsection (3), the words "2, 3," and "62", in subsection (4), the words from the beginning to "procedure and" in subsection (5)(a), the words "other than an order under section 62".").
Page 383, line 45, column 3, leave out ("116(1)") and insert ("116, in subsection (1)").
Page 383, line 47, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (4), the word "20,".").
Page 384, line 28, column 3, leave out ("Section 14(2)(b).") and insert ("In section 14(2), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.").
Page 384, line 29, column 3, leave out ("Section 18(2)(b).") and insert ("In section 18(2), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.").
The noble Earl said: All these amendments are consequential upon previously agreed amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 184 [Local statutory provisions: consequential amendments etc.]:
4.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 447KA:
Page 180, line 4, at beginning insert—
(" (A1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any other provision of this Act affecting general transitional provision, on and after the transfer date every local statutory provision relating to a function, property, right or liability transferred by or under this Act to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker, and everything done by or in relation to a water authority under such provision, shall have effect, so far as may be necessary for the purposes of, or in connection with, the said transfer as if—

(a) any reference contained in, or falling to be construed as contained in, any such provision to a water authority were a reference to the relevant undertaker; and

(b) any such thing had been done by or in relation to that undertaker.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to provide a "general translation" of references to water authorities in local statutory provisions, so that those will be construed as references to the successor companies in those cases where the Bill does not already indicate what is to happen to such references.
At present, the Bill provides that local statutory provisions relating to functions which are being transferred exclusively to the NRA are to have effect as if references to water authorities were references to the NRA: hence the expression "general translation". Examples of such translations are Clause 138, relating to navigation, conservancy and harbour authority functions, and paragraph 1 of Schedule 16, relating to fisheries.
The Government are known to have considered the problem and officials have expressed an intention to amend the Bill to provide for some form of general translation, while properly stressing the need, which, as I have indicated, the water authorities fully recognise, for eventual
380
identification of those functions in the local statutory provisions which are relevant to both the successor companies and the NRA.
The amendment represents, in the view of the water authorities, an effective way to achieve that general translation. It is subject to the provisions in the Bill which expressly cover other translations, and to the orders to be made in due course under Clause 184. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able at least to say that he accepts it in principle and that he will bring forward his own amendment on Report. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with great care to my noble friend. I thought that she had a convincing argument. As the Committee will see, the amendment is starred on the Marshalled List. I hope that my noble friend will permit me to take it away and consider it. I shall be happy to discuss it with her before another stage, when I hope we shall be able to agree an amendment to bring forward to cover the point that she has raised.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 447L:
Page 180, line 33, at end insert—
(" ( ) Nothing in this Act or in any order made under this section shall abrogate or curtail the duty of the Thames Water Authority (or any successor company) to maintain and preserve in perpetuity the historic water course known as the New River with a wholesome and sufficient supply of water.").
The noble Lord said: It is gratifying to note that the Chamber fills up immediately my name goes on the Annunciator. I somehow suspect that that is for something that will happen in a few moments. I am sorry to inflict the amendment on the Committee at this late hour—not because of the amendment, but because of the late hour.
I received an excellent brief from the authorities in the area of Haringey, Barnet and Enfield. The amendment is a serious one. The New River, which will be known to many Members in this place, is a historic watercourse originally constructed in the 17th century to bring fresh water from Hertfordshire to the City of London. There is widespread concern among the public, and the local authorities through whose areas it flows, that the future of the New River is at risk and should be safeguarded.
Clause 184 of the Water Bill concerns the power of the Secretary of State or the Minister by order to repeal or amend any relevant local statutory provision. By subsection (4) it is already provided that no order made under that clause may curtail any right of way (or any specified public rights) conferred by a local Act. The new subsection set out in the proposed amendment seeks in a similar way to protect the future of the New River from a too sudden repeal of the obligation of the Thames Water Authority to maintain and preserve that watercourse. That obligation derives from the local statutory provisions.
The New River rises near Ware in Hertfordshire, and it is fed primarily by water from the River Lea. For centuries it has brought fresh water to the City of London. I could say a great deal more about its environmental and ecological benefits.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring before the Committee and the Minister the following facts. In 1985, the Thames Water Authority proposed to declare a major part of the New River redundant. At first the proposal was to be effective southwards of a point at Brookfield Lane, Cheshunt in the area of Broxbourne District Council. However, in 1987 the scheme was modified so that the New River would remain operational to a point at Maidens Brook in the London Borough of Enfield. The remaining length south of Maidens Brook was to become operationally redundant.
In July of last year the TWA's divisional manager indicated in correspondence that the New River from Ware to Maidens Brook, Enfield was to be unchanged; proceeds from TWA's development proposals at Stoke Newington were to be applied in part to pay for maintaining the New River as a valuable feature, including the following measures: maintaining as high a flow as possible; introducing a conservation management plan for the East Reservoir, Stoke Newington; providing public access between Ware and Southbury Road, Enfield; entering into discussions with the local authorities about additional access downstream; and discussing with the London Borough of Enfield the future flow to the Enfield Loop. The purpose of the amendment is to express the unease of the people in the area that under a successor authority the undertakings which are currently accepted by the TWA may not be fully carried out.
May I say before I close on this matter that, as the Marshalled List shows, my noble friend Lady David was set down to oppose the Question that Clause 187 stand part of the Bill. The purpose of that was to allow her to express the views of those who are very concerned, particularly the Ramblers' Association in the Lake District, in respect of a similar situation, where undertakings written in statute are in danger if the successor companies are enabled by this clause to disregard undertakings currently in force. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The subject of discussion under the amendment is essentially local and specific and it would be, I suggest to the Committee, most improper for it to intrude into general legislation of this kind. For this reason it should not be accepted. But before asking the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, let me make, within the boundaries of parliamentary propriety, one or two remarks about the matter he has raised.
First, the New River was established by Royal Charter, and in principle it appears to us that any rights or liabilities under it which at present rest with Thames Water will pass, unchanged in any way by this Bill, to the successor bodies.
Secondly, I am given to understand that some of the original rights and liabilities under that charter
382
have since been embodied in local legislation. They, too, will be unaffected by the Bill. Furthermore, I here draw the attention of the noble Lord to subsection (4) of Clause 184, inserted by amendment by the Secretary of State at Report siage in another place, which provides that no order under Section 184 may abrogate or curtail any rights of public access or amenity in local legislation.
Finally, let me make one general observation. I have listened with great care to all the noble Lord has said about the local importance of the New River. But may I ask him to consider two questions? First, is it practicable in fact with the new London Ring Main to maintain a wholesome and sufficient supply of water? Nature has a hand in these things and they are complex matters. Secondly, as regards the great amenity which local residents have drawn from the river and associated land, this is of course a matter for consideration in the normal operation of the planning system. I am sure the local planning authority will properly exercise its functions and weigh all the different considerations. But that is territory into which I must not stray, since clearly any planning application may come to the Secretary of State for consideration.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for raising this amendment. Yesterday we heard of some of the unprecedented nationalisation that the next Labour Government, whenever that happens—which I hope is never—are to undertake. Let me remind the Committee that it was Sir Hugh Myddelton and King James II who jointly funded the New River to bring to the City of London fresh water from Hertfordshire. This was a major engineering achievement at the time and was also the first private water venture of this sort. No doubt this is why the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is keen to preserve it—to remind our successors of the private enterprise successes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I just record the fact that the discussion in Committee, which the noble Lord so inaccurately recounts, took place not yesterday but the day before.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Earl, not for the first time, is in a daze. Of course I am very grateful to him for almost word for word reading out that part of my brief which I decided I had not time to read. He certainly did not have my brief, but the facts that he has are incontrovertible. I understand, as does the Minister, that this is an attempt by local authorities to use the Bill to raise a point that concerns them very deeply. I shall certainly not take any action on this clause today.
The Minister will understand, however, that those with whom I shall be in touch will examine very carefully what he said. The Minister certainly said kind things about the need to preserve the amenity. But, quite frankly, he also raised some of the fears that local people have. They are concerned that anything which is not already written in statute may fall. Our anxiety is that the clause we are debating could provide the Minister with the opportunities to enable that to occur. However, I shall consider very carefully what the Minister had to say, and I may

383
come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 184 agreed to.
Clauses 185 and 186 agreed to.
Clause 187 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 448:
Page 182, line 6, after ("section") insert, (", so much of this Act as confers any power to make subordinate legislation or makes provision with respect to the exercise of any such power").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 449, 450 and 452. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 449, 450 and 450A:
Page 182, line 8, after ("Act") insert (", except in so far as they are already in force in accordance with subsection (2) above,").
Page 182, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert ("(including Schedules 5 and 6) and sections").
Page 182, line 11, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 15 and insert ("V of Part II, except section (restrictions on power to make connection and certain other charges);").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 449 to 450A en bloc. Amendment No. 450A is consequential on Amendment No. 345AB which we discussed and agreed yesterday.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 451 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 451A:
Page 182, line 17, after ("IV") insert (", except so far as relating to the amendment in Schedule 16 to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951").
The noble Earl said; In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 415B and 454. These are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 451B, 452, 453 and 454:
Page 182, line 17, at end insert—
("(ee) Part V and Schedules 21 and 22 except so far as relating to sections 33,47 and 48 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;").
Page 182, line 18, leave out ("except so far as relating to the making of subordinate legislation").
Page 183, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) section (Indemnities in respect of fluoridation.);").
Page 183, line 14, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) The following provisions of this Act shall extend to Scotland only (subject, in the case of paragraph (a) below, to the application of sections 21 and 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 to any provision of that Act) namely—

(a) subsection (5) of section 137 above and Schedule 16 to this Act so far as they amend section 15 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951;

384

(b) Part V and Schedules 21 and 22;

(c) section 183 and Schedule 24 so far as they amend the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 and the Water (Scotland) Act 1980;

(d) section 183 and Part I of Schedule 26 . 3 far as they relate to section 104 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 451B to 454 en bloc. All of them are consequential. These are the last amendments of eight long days of Committee. I am very grateful for the spirit in which all the Members of the Committee have taken part in the proceedings. We have made a number of concessions to the Committee, and as dawn breaks at the end of the eighth day so dawn is breaking for a new look for water which will be better for the country. We have a lot of work to do to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed. I wish to thank all the Members of the Committee and all the Officers of the Chamber for their kind behaviour. I am sorry to have kept them up until such a late hour this morning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Question is even put, I shall take the opportunity of concurring with what the noble Earl has said both about the Members of the Committee who have taken part in this Committee stage and about the Officers and servants of the Chamber who have put in exceptional duty over the past month. There are many things still to be done on Report and the time allotted for that will clearly not be adequate. However, as the noble Earl said, we have made some progress, although some of it was against the wishes of the Government. The Bill is already better. Let us hope that we can continue with that improvement.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 187, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Midland Metro Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
National Maritime Museum Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Atomic Energy Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before five o'clock.

  IVORY POACHING: PREVENTION INITIATIVES
  IVORY POACHING: PREVENTION INITIATIVES
  WATER BILL: EC COMMISSIONERS LETTER
  WATER BILL: EC COMMISSIONERS LETTER
  ILEA FUNCTIONS: COMPETITIVE TENDERING AFTER TRANSFER
  ILEA FUNCTIONS: COMPETITIVE TENDERING AFTER TRANSFER
  LONDON UNDERGROUND STATIONS: SAFETY REVIEW
  LONDON UNDERGROUND STATIONS: SAFETY REVIEW
  RESETTLEMENT UNITS EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  RESETTLEMENT UNITS EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  RURAL AND PART-TIME GPs: PRACTICE SIZES
  RURAL AND PART-TIME GPs: PRACTICE SIZES
  SCHIZOPHRENIA: STATISTICS
  SCHIZOPHRENIA: STATISTICS