Sitting of 24 May 1989

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

    Unleaded Petrol
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of car refuellings now take place at garages which stock unleaded petrol.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): There has recently been a dramatic increase in outlets. The UK Petroleum Industry Association has advised that approaching two out of three refuellings now take place at petrol stations where unleaded fuel is available.
    Mr. Martin: I welcome that reply from my hon. Friend and also the leaflet, "Adjust to Unleaded", which the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport are producing and which I hope will have very wide circulation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the wider availability of unleaded petrol is vital if we are to have more stringent controls on exhaust emissions? What are the Government doing about that and what do they intend to do in the future?
    Ms. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The "Adjust to Unleaded" leaflet is supposed to give practical advice and encouragement to people to use unleaded petrol. It is certainly the case that the distribution and use of unleaded petrol pave the way towards the strict car emission standards to which we are committed. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today that—provided that the industrially unrealistic interim standard of 1991 is withdrawn and there is a commitment to respect the unity of the market—we shall agree to the Commission's proposals for the new standards for small car exhaust emissions.
    Mr. James Lamond: While joining in congratulating the hon. Lady on the information that her Department has issued to the public, I draw her attention to one point. When the owners of a number of cars listed as being fully available to use unleaded petrol consult the dealers—for example, Volkswagen vehicles—they are told that they have to use a tank of leaded petrol from time to time to keep the engines in good order. Will the hon. Lady investigate that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. I chair the unleaded petrol group which works with members of the motor, petrol and
    934
    oil industries and various Government Departments. We have been at great pains to ensure that proper and reliable information is available throughout the country. Of course, the information provided by the dealer or the garage mechanic is vital. I have even attended a training day for garage owners to encourage them to give the proper information to their customers.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I congratulate the Government on carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for a 10p per gallon gap —the largest anywhere in the EEC—in the taxation of unleaded and leaded fuel. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is just as important to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from power stations by having a balanced element of nuclear power as to control the amount of lead going into the atmosphere from petrol, which is also very important?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the substantial differential, which I believe is the second highest in the European Community. It has made a significant difference to the uptake of unleaded petrol. He is right. of course, to identify the whole question of carbon dioxide. At the Council of Environment Ministers the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, my hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, will be pressing the Commission to bring forward measures to tackle greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, which is a matter of great concern to us all.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister has just made a most significant announcement, which should have been in the form of a formal statement. After a virulent, sustained and misinformed campaign by the Government against the catalytic converter and the adoption of stricter United States standards for vehicle emissions in Europe, have the Government not just done a U-turn by accepting the EEC directive on stricter vehicle emissions? Will the Minister confirm that although this will mean that all new cars will have to run on lead-free petrol and have a three-way catalytic converter the Minister's statement makes it clear that the Government are still trying to delay the implementation of those new standards from 1991 to 1993 and intend to move an amendment along those lines at the Council of Ministers meeting on 8 June? If that amendment is not carried, will the Government still try to hold up implementation of the directive?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I apologise for having taken the wind out of the hon. Gentleman's sails and for disappointing him with my announcement today. For a long time the Government have believed that three-way catalytic converters and oxidation catalysts would have an important part to play in controlling pollution. That is one of the reasons why we have been so determined to extend the distribution and availability of unleaded petrol.
    There is concern about the accumulation of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. We believe that the right way to protect the environment is on the basis of hard science, not hot heads. We are seeking an agreement and it is time that the motor industry and the consumer knew the way forward. We shall welcome the Commission's proposals on the basis of the few conditions that I have made clear. We hope that we shall be able to encourage

    935
    others to follow our example in taking sufficiently seriously the problems of the greenhouse effect and climate change.

    River Polluters
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what date members of the public were given the right to prosecute polluters of rivers.
    The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): Members of the public were given the right to prosecute polluters of rivers by sections 31 and 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which were brought into force by the present Government on 31 January 1985.
    Mr. Hughes: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that all the extra measures contained in the Water Bill will be implemented fully by the Government whereas the measures brought in by the Labour Government were never implemented? When we combine that fact with Labour's total opposition to the Water Bill, it is difficult to see the Labour party as the friend of people who want clean water. Labour is on the side of the polluters.
    Mr. Howard: I can indeed confirm that the rights of private prosecution will continue under the Water Bill, which is designed to achieve substantial improvements in our water environment and will help to correct the mischief from which we are still suffering as a consequence of the lack of investment in the industry under the Labour Government.
    Ms. Primarolo: In view of the Minister's reply to the main question, may I ask what steps the Government intend to take against the South West water authority, which has now polluted rivers for the third time, this time with aluminium sulphate?
    Mr. Howard: The incident to which the hon. Lady refers is certainly regrettable, but it did not affect the quality of drinking water in any way. The South West water authority has substantially reviewed its procedures since the Camelford incident and is reviewing the incident to which the hon. Lady refers.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House and Members in the other place who care deeply about the purity of our river systems should not be hoodwinked into believing that there is a simple answer to pollution? While it is clear that sometimes the worst polluters are the water authorities themselves, the ecological balance of our river systems is extremely delicate and a great deal more research needs to be carried out by bodies such as the National Environmental Research Council and the Freshwater Biological Association.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. However, the National Rivers Authority will have a crucial role to play in ensuring that we have the highest possible river standards in this country. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that 95 per cent. of the rivers in the United Kingdom fall into grades 1 and 2—the highest proportion in any member state of the European Community.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the pollution incidents in the South West water authority area
    936
    —there have been three within 10 months—are serious public problems and not private ones? Will he initiate a proper independent inquiry to discover why South West Water has mishandled things in such a way as to allow aluminium pollution to occur three times in succession? Will he do something to ensure that the privatisation of South West Water does not go ahead until that proper independent inquiry has taken place?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that those three incidents are an advertisement for public sector control of the water industry. The latest incidents need to be seen in perspective. Neither of the two more recent incidents affected the drinking water supply, but a thorough investigation of both is being conducted by the authority.
    Mr. Harris: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend has to say about South West Water but how many times have water authorities prosecuted themselves for the pollution of rivers or water supplies? I appreciate that he may not be able to answer that, but does he not agree that one of the great benefits of the Water Bill is that the prosecution role will be taken away from the water authorities and given to the National Rivers Authority?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is most unsatisfactory that under the present system water authorities combine the roles of gamekeeper and poacher. We are moving away from that. The National Rivers Authority will be responsible for prosecuting under the new system which is being put into place and which I expect to bring a substantial improvement in standards.

    Playing Fields (Sales)
    Mr. Radice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to protect playing fields from being sold for purposes other than sport and recreation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have urged local authorities to take into account the needs of the wider community and to consult local sports and recreational interests before allowing recreational land to be developed, but these must be matters for local authorities themselves to decide.
    Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that according to the National Playing Fields Association 800 sites, or 100,000 acres of sports facilities, have been lost for ever as a direct consequence of Government policy? Will the Government therefore withdraw circular 909 and prevent even more of our playing fields from being taken over by property developers?
    Mr. Chope: The fault does not lie with the Government but, often, with Socialist local authorities. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that yesterday the Socialist ILEA decided, over the heads of the London Playing Fields Society, to sell 20 acres of playing fields in south London. That proposal was hotly contested by the Conservatives, but sadly the Socialists had a majority.
    Mr. Tracey: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few months ago Mr. Neil Fletcher, the leader of the Socialist-controlled Inner London education authority said that he would take all steps to prevent property developers from buying ILEA sports grounds and building houses on them?

    937
    Yesterday ILEA agreed to sell 20 acres of unencumbered sports ground. Does my hon. Friend realise the consequences of that precedent, given that ILEA has more than 200 acres of satellite sports grounds? Will he give the House an undertaking to call in any planning applications to build houses on those sports grounds?
    Mr. Chope: Any planning applications that are made would have to be referred to the local planning authority, which would consider whether the local plan was such as to give a clear indication as to what should be done with those playing fields. My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to what happened with ILEA. Fortunately, ILEA is soon to be abolished and will thus be unable to pursue any more of this Socialist humbug.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the Minister accept that this is a national matter and, therefore, a matter for Ministers? Is there not a responsibility to ensure playing fields facilities for generations of sportsmen yet to come? Does he think that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be so supine if someone wanted to flog off the playing fields of Eton?
    Mr. Chope: The fact that we should have more recreational facilities is a national matter. I am pleased to say that as a result of the Government's policies more people are participating in recreation than ever before. That is a sign that we have achieved a good balanced policy at national level. We shall be updating the planning policy guidance on this and hope to issue a new document before the end of the year.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that most of ILEA's playing fields are in the outer London boroughs, which are not controlled by Socialist authorities? Will he therefore stop this nonsense and join me today in saying that it is absolutely essential for the future of community sport and school sport, on which all British sport depends, to stop selling off sports fields in any local authority whatever its political complexion? [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about Labour ILEA?"] Labour ILEA has playing fields in Conservative areas, where the authorities will not purchase them—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Howell: It is all right, Mr. Speaker; they think they are on the terraces.
    Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in 1984 the now Minister for Sport—he is not present today—promoted a Sports Fields and Recreational Facilities Bill requiring the Government to monitor the sale of sports fields carefully and to take appropriate action. Why has he surrendered that proposal since taking office?
    Mr. Chope: I hope that Socialist authorities up and down the country will heed some of the right hon. Gentleman's advice.
    Mr. Hayward: Does my hon. Friend believe that any of the contributors from the Opposition have read his reply to the Adjournment debate on Monday night, particularly the reference to the sale of a sports ground in my constituency by the Co-operative Wholesale Society?
    Mr. Chope: That comment is a further indication that the Opposition are clutching at straws. They do not have a consistent policy like ours; the sooner they develop one, the better.

    Unauthorised Development
    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any intention to strengthen the powers of planning authorities to deal with unauthorised development; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend invited comments by 31 May on Mr. Robert Carnwath's report on this subject entitled "Enforcing Planning Control". When the response has been considered my right hon. Friend will seek an early legislative opportunity to strengthen the enforcement regime at present contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
    Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but will he tell us whether the Government intend to ad opt the recommendations in the Carnwath report? If so, what are his views on the 10-year immunity for unauthorised use?
    Mr. Howard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really expects me this afternoon to pre-empt the entire consultation exercise on which we are engaged. The Government take consultation seriously, and I want to study carefully the views expressed in response to the consultation before I make up my mind about an} of the proposals.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's announcement that there will be legislation, but he will be aware from representations that he has received from many local authorities, including my own, that they consider their present statutory position quite inadequate. There is now insufficient provision to deter a developer who wishes to break all the rules. Can my hon. and learned Friend give a guarantee that that deterrent will be there in the future?
    Mr. Howard: I agree that the enforcement powers now available to local authorities are inadequate. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Mr. Robert Carnwath to report on the matter, and why we are consulting on the report and hope to proceed to action.
    Mr. O'Brien: Can the Minister give us any idea of the timetable for the introduction of legislation, and when the consultation process will end? In the past 10 years of Tory rule, little has been done to prevent the abuse of planning laws. The appeal procedure is a costly and lengthy one for local authorities, and they must also suffer uncertainty about the outcome. It is therefore important that action be taken as soon as possible. Will the Minister also take on board the issue of third parties who may be aggrieved? Will they receive protection so that they can make representations in the event of abuse of planning laws?
    Mr. Howard: There will certainly be opportunities for all interested parties to make representations. As I said in my original answer, my right hon. Friend will wish to legislate on the matter at the earliest opportunity.

    Peak Park Planning Board
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Knox: How does my right hon. Friend justify the fact that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country where planning decisions are made by people who are not directly elected? Does he regard that as fair to those who live there?
    Mr. Ridley: I know and acknowledge my hon. Friend's strong feelings and persistence on that point, but he will appreciate that if any change is made it will be necessary also to alter the arrangements for electing national park planning authorities—all of them, not just one or two. In Northumberland, only 2,500 people live in the national park, so such a solution would not be appropriate.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State recall that when greater Manchester council was abolished the place for its elected representatives on the Peak planning authority was abolished? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of people in greater Manchester enjoy visiting the Peak district for recreation and feel that they ought to have more say in the way in which its planning authority operates? They are particularly concerned that existing guaranteed access to water authority land should be retained and that the Peak park planning authority will not have to pay more for that access.
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, and I am equally certain that many people living in the countryside would like more say in the way in which Manchester city council runs its affairs.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent constituencies in which national parks are situated appreciate the consultations that his Department holds with right hon. and hon. Members on the selection of the people who are to serve on planning authorities? Does he agree that voluntary organisations and societies representing people who love the countryside have an important role to play? Is he aware that last weekend the Exmoor Society, which started with a victory over a proposal to plant conifers on a large part of Exmoor, celebrated its 30th anniversary? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the work of such voluntary societies?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly do so, and I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the anniversary to which he referred. I hope that he feels that our decision to restrict grants for coniferous plantations on the uplands of England makes a contribution of comparable value.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that one problem arising in direct elections is the size of constituency which should be involved? My constituents make regular use of the Peak park and should therefore be included in any extended franchise. If that happens, they should also have some control over what happens in the Peak park area. Water privatisation is interfering with
    940
    rights of access there. Does the Minister agree that those elected under any transformed electoral system should be able to influence that?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 12 different local authorities have part of their areas within the Peak district national park, but I entirely disagree with his comments about the Water Bill, to which the democratically elected Government and Parliament have given a fair wind because they believe it to be the right measure. The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the Bill provides full safeguards for access to hitherto accessible water authority land.

    Mortgage Repossessions
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for homelessness arising from mortgage repossessions in the south-east and south-west of England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Estimates from local authority returns for the fourth quarter of 1988 are that about 300 households in London and the south-east, and about 100 in the south-west, were accepted by local councils as homeless as a result of mortgage repossessions.
    Ms. Primarolo: Does the Minister accept that as a result of the Government's continuing disastrous economics policies, which brought yet another rise in interest rates today, the problem of mortgage repossessions is becoming even more serious? Is it not true that the figures that he gave do not take into account repossessions by banks and finance houses, and that the true proportion of homeless people in the priority need group presenting themselves to local authorities is one in 10? Is the Minister aware that the situation is deteriorating rapidly, and what action does he intend to take to solve this disastrous problem in the housing market?
    Mr. Trippier: I can only describe the hon. Lady's figures as nonsense. The figures that I have already given in the substantive answer do not help the case that she is seeking to advance. The truth is that, according to the latest statistics, there has been a decline in the number of mortgage repossessions in the past two years. On the very point that the hon. Lady made about the economy, the director general of the Building Societies Association recently said:
    "The decline in the number of repossessions and arrears is consistent with the improvement in performance of the economy in recent years and … the sharp fall in unemployment"
    since
    "the middle of 1986."
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best advice that he can give those who find themselves in difficulties with their mortgages is not to wait until the 59th minute of the 11th hour with the bailiffs knocking at the door, but to go to the building society office that they deal with, put the problem to them and reschedule the borrowing? Does he further agree that in such cases there may be a case for building societies and other reputable lending institutions to take properties back and relet them to the former owners to prevent pressure on housing waiting lists?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend's earlier point. That is sound advice. Experience has shown that in those circumstances building societies are, in the vast majority of cases, sympathetic, and that has contributed to the fairly dramatic fall that we have seen in the figures that I have already given to the House.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister's figures are misleading because they apply only to building societies, as the societies make clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is right. The fastest growing area of homelessness for families is mortgage repossessions from all mortgage companies and the local authorities are having to pick up the bill. Why does not the Minister put that right? Does he remember the Tory party's promise in 1979 given by his ex-housing spokesman, supported by the Prime Minister in 1980, that mortgage rates would not rise above 9·5 per cent. under the Tory Government? Except on two brief occasions they have never been under 10 per cent. in the past 10 years.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman knows why we have to have this temporary period of high interest rates. Several undertakings have been given by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that front. The main purpose is to reduce inflation—a lesson that was never learnt by the Labour party in office when its record was disastrous. We have not got anywhere near the 27 per cent. that inflation reached then.
    I question where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures for his earlier point. We have to give the figures that are available from a number of sources. They have to be correct and subject to parliamentary reply. The hon. Gentleman's figures are pure hypothesis.
    Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that all the published statistics show that homelessness through mortgage arrears is a small proportion of those facing homelessness, the only purpose of the campaign being waged by the Opposition must be to alarm many people who have fallen into mortgage arrears and possibly to deter those who would otherwise buy their homes?
    Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I genuinely believe that the campaign to which he referred which has been waged this week will not do a single thing to solve the problem—not a single thing. To put the matter in perspective, although it is distressing to the people involved—I emphasise again that no individual or political party has a monopoly on compassion—the latest figures show that less than one third of 1 per cent. of mortgage advances result in possession of the property by the lender.

    County Hall, London
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the future use of the county hall, London SE1.
    Mr. Ridley: The future use of county hall is in part the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court decision made in March 1988 and in part the subject of planning appeals recently submitted to me. Arrangements are in hand for the holding of a public inquiry. I cannot comment on the proposals.
    Mr. Banks: Is not the conversion of county hall into a luxury hotel a studied insult to the homeless of London and to Londoners generally'? Would not the Secretary of State do well to advise the sleazebags who are corning up with this particular proposal that a Labour Government will take county hall back into public ownership by compulsory purchase and they will lose an awful lot of money unless they back off now?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot comment on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I can assure him that the hypothesis contained in the second part certainly will riot come true.
    Mr. Gow: In what ways would the progress of mankind be impeded if further municipal headquarters, notably those owned and occupied by Socialist authorities, were sold to the private sector?
    Mr. Ridley: I confess that I am stumped by my lion. Friend's question.

    Bad Landlords
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to counter the activities of bad landlords in the private rented sector.
    Mr. Ridley: The Government significantly strengthened the law against harassment in the Housing Act 1988.
    Mr. Meale: As there will certainly be a future Labour Government, has the right hon. Gentleman noted the Labour party's commitment to tenants in private sector accommodation to provide additional protection by offering them the opportunity to opt for decent landlords in non-resident properties? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared immediately to offer that to tenants in the private sector?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is too early in that he predicts something that will not happen, yet too late in that we have already taken legislative steps to improve the law against harassment. The offence of
    "Harassing a tenant knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that this was likely to cause him to leave his home"
    is an improvement on previous law.
    The hon. Gentleman probably is not aware that there is a new right to civil damages effective from 9 June based on the landlord's profit from illegal eviction. In a case brought by the Hammersmith and Fulham tenancy relations department a landlord was put in prison for 28 days under the new legislation. I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with that.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the other half of the coin of private landlords is public landlords, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to deal with bad public landlords such as Camden council and others?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend, who knows that we are continuing to take measures both to get publicly owned stock properly and fully used and to improve the standard of management of some local authorities, which leaves a lot to be desired.
    Mr. Soley: Why is it that the tenant of a Mr. Rachman or a Mr. Hoogstraten cannot have the right to change his landlord?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the public sector is not in competition with the private sector in many areas, and that shows very much in local authorities' service to their tenants.
    Mr. Leigh: Does not the history of well-intentioned efforts by Government since the first world war to regulate the private rented sector prove beyond peradventure two economic facts of life—that shortages raise prices and that Governments create shortages?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The effect of the Rent Acts since the end of the first world war has deprived large numbers of people of the opportunity to have the sort of accommodation that they wanted. One of the great achievements of this Government is that that restriction on supply has been ended, at least for new tenants.

    Recycled Paper
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of paper used in Government offices is recycled paper.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Most paper and paper products used by Government Departments contain some recycled paper. A growing proportion is 100 per cent. recycled.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the brakes on the expansion of the use of recycled paper is that, in general, it is more expensive than freshly produced paper? Would not a considerable expansion of purchasing by a major purchaser such as the Government ensure that manufacturers had the volume to reduce prices and so extend the use of recycled paper? Are the Government prepared to expand the figures that the hon. Lady has given to the House?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Government Departments are responsible for their own purchasing policies, but Her Majesty's Stationery Office is able and willing actively to explain to Departments the qualities of the paper that are available at an economically viable price which offer good value for money. All Department of the Environment ministerial correspondence uses fully recycled paper. A great deal of the Department's other paper is fully recycled. In other areas, a proportion of the paper has been recycled. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) co-ordinates a group of Ministers who are trying to encourage and promote recycling. Other Government Departments are looking again at the issue.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that most paper is made from coniferous soft woods that are grown in many parts of the northern hemisphere as a crop, just like a conventional agricultural crop? In attempting to protect the overall quantity of paper that is used, we must ensure that we maintain an adequate level of afforestation in the northern hemisphere.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend has said, the wood used for paper production is a managed crop. However, the Government recognise that recycled paper has a very important part to play. The majority of the input into the mills is recycled. We are the fourth largest user of waste paper in the world.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that there is far more to a comprehensive waste policy in the United Kingdom than bagging, binning and winning it? Does she not agree that 70 per cent. of domestic waste consists of packaging and newsprint and that currently—this is what concerns the Opposition—less than 30 per cent. of our total consumption of paper and board is recycled? When will the Government introduce an integrated waste management policy that takes full account of the need to recycle? When will the Minister put her own house in order and say why all my previous requests that recycled paper should be used in the Palace of Westminster have fallen on the deaf ears of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is sitting next to her?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady must know that her last point is a matter for the Services Committee. The Government fully recognise the importance of recycling in helping to minimise waste and conserve resources and energy, whenever it makes economic sense and the proper quality can be provided. There are many remarkable initiatives to promote recycling. Only this week I launched Sheffield's recycling city initiative. Where it makes economic sense, Sheffield hopes to recycle a great number of products. It is important to work with the private sector. The way in which the private sector in Sheffield is working with the voluntary bodies and the local authority is a good example.
    Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to work out how many trees have had to be cut down to provide material for all the press releases, letters and motions put forward by the Liberal party, claiming credit
    for other people's good ideas and hard work?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have not had the opportunity to work that out, but, rather than bagging and binning them, I hope that they will bag them, bin them and send them off to the City of Westminster where I know that the waste paper will be recycled and put to good use.

    Urban Development Corporations
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of each urban development corporation's budget in both 1988–89 and 1989–90 is allocated for community projects and voluntary sector initiatives.
    Mr. Trippier: The percentages of UDC budgets allocated for community projects and voluntary sector initiatives for each of the years specified are as follows:

    1988–89

    1989–90

    Black Country

    1·3

    1·8

    Bristol

    0

    1·0

    Central Manchester

    1·4

    1·6

    Leeds

    0·9

    0·1

    London docklands

    3·3

    6·5

    Merseyside

    4·5

    3·1

    Sheffield

    0·4

    0·7

    Teesside

    2·4

    0·3

    Trafford Park

    0·1

    0·3

    Tyne and Wear

    0·3

    0·9

    Mr. Michie: Obviously the figures are not as high as we should like them to be, and we are disappointed. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that priority should be

    945
    given to community projects, such as sports, open space parks and social housing? What advice is he giving to the chairmen of the UDCs to discuss these issues with the local authorities and the voluntary sector, both of which have vast experience of these matters?
    Mr. Trippier: I certainly have no quarrel with the last point that the hon. Gentleman made. Sheffield development corporation is anxious to work with the local authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of local councillors are on the board. Among the initiatives supported by the development corporation are ethnic minority, social, educational and recreational projects, which is impressive. There are statutory responsibilities of Sheffield city council that have not passed to the urban development corporation. Those powers are retained by the city council. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to transfer those powers to the UDC.
    Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) who, as a former Sheffield city councillor, will probably recollect that the powers are there. The local authority has power to do such things. Various leaders of Sheffield city council are members of the UDC and I am sure that the two bodies talk to each other. Furthermore, Sheffield city council is the planning authority or assists with planning for the development corporation.
    Mr. Trippier: Indeed. We have an agreement with Sheffield development corporation and the city council that the council should be the agency for planning. That is a step forward. I detected in the substantive question on the Order Paper some antagonism. Contrary to what I expected, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) was not antagonistic in his supplementary—in stark contrast to his contributions in the past.
    Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the revitalisation work that is being carried out on the waterfront in Liverpool and the work of the Merseyside development corporation. The Minister will be aware of the widespread concern because some of the voluntary sector and community initiatives that are desperately needed in the area have not got off the ground. Will the Minister give continued attention to trying to find ways of using resources to benefit the local people rather than just tourists and businesses?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The main point is that a development corporation should not in any way supplant work that could be done by a borough council or, as in Liverpool, a city council. I recognise that development corporations can in some cases act as a catalyst. There is a good example in the Merseyside development corporation with regard to training and the support that it gives to Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Limited.

    Paper Conservation
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce environmental measures to stop the excessive use of paper so as to save depletion of timber resources.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government promote recycling of paper wherever it is economically viable to do so. The use of recycled paper is increasing and already the United Kingdom is the fourth largest user of waste paper in the world. There are no plans for compulsory restrictions on the use of paper.
    Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that efforts on recycling will be welcome on both sides of the House, as will efforts to encourage the planting of trees? Will my hon. Friend join me in a campaign against the excessive use of paper by mindless lobby campaigns, oversized and unreadable Sunday newspapers, junk mail and unnecessary photocopying, the waste of paper in Whitehall and, last but not least, the waste of paper in the House of Commons?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend. I think that most hon. Members and members of the Government agree that there is far too much paper in Whitehall. The only difficulty is that it has to go through Ministers' boxes on its way to being recycled by the City of Westminster. The only redeeming feature of junk mail is that if it has been through the Post Office in the last month it has at least arrived with "We love unleaded petrol" franked on it.
    Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister agree that there is a shocking waste of paper? I cannot agree with her reply. The Secretary of State at her side is responsible for the environment. Why do we keep finding confidential Government documents on landfill sites? That shows clearly that the Government are wasting paper because the documents do not tell us anything. I suggest that we should recycle the Secretary of State.
    Mrs. Bottomley: That was an uncharacteristically ungenerous remark from the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who has pioneered many achievements for the environment. I shall riot respond in kind as, although I should like many Opposition Members to be recycled, I would not apply that insult to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that enough litter and waste paper is deposited illegally in Britain each year to reforest an area the size of Wales? Does she accept that any initiatives taken by her and the Department to encourage the recycling of paper and, therefore, saving the timber stock, are to be warmly applauded?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend who has done a great deal to promote activity and interest in the war on litter. Litter is offensive and needless and, as my hon. Friend well knows, the Government are determined to tackle the problem of litter once and for all. Not only is it a waste of resources, but it is unsightly and offensive and there is no place for it in a modern Britain.

    River Quality
    Mr. Conn Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of rivers in the United Kingdom were in good or fair condition at the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Howard: The 1985 river quality surveys for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland indicated that about 95 per cent. of river lengths in the

    947
    United Kingdom were classified as good quality or fair quality; that is the latest year for which comprehensive figures are available.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the River Wye in my constituency is up to the mark, as it should be? Secondly, will he confirm that he is bringing the greatest possible pressure to bear on rivers in the United Kingdom which are not yet up to the top mark and that he is sustaining the greatest possible pressure on the rivers in the remainder of the European Community countries so that British industry is not disadvantaged in such an important area of trade?
    Mr. Howard: Yes. No other member state in the European Community has a higher proportion of its river length in the top two grades of river quality than the United Kingdom. The River Wye has consistently been of class I quality for a considerable time.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister tell us the exact class of the River Rother from which my constituency gets its name? When are we going to start cleaning up that river?
    Mr. Howard: Unfortunately the River Rother is not in either of the top two grades of river quality, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that its present condition is the result of activities that have continued for generations. The clean-up has started and its pace will quicken when the water industry is in the private sector.
    Sir Giles Shaw: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend's comment about the River Rother. Does he accept that the River Aire, which also suffers from excessive industrial effluent, will likewise take a considerable time to reach the proper grade? In that regard, will he confirm that the National Rivers Authority will not be slow to set up regional operations within the Yorkshire Water region so that a proper plan can be developed and adhered to in the new-found capacity of the plcs to borrow and spend money?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The National Rivers Authority will take precisely the action that he has identified. The attitude of Opposition Members on this, as on so many other matters, is that things are absolutely dreadful as they are, so let us keep them exactly as they are.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister comment—as there has not been a statement on the subject in this House—on the decision, announced in the other place, that £5·5 billion will be written off the debt of the water authorities to make their flotation a success? Is he aware that it will not be the sale of our water industry but a daylight giveaway?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's comments are entirely incorrect, and I refer him to the Hansard of what my noble Friend Lord Caithness said in the other place. The write-off of the £5·5 billion refers only to the debt to the national loans fund which takes place on every privatisation. It will be replaced by securities with which each company will enter the private sector, and we shall announce our decisions on those securities at the appropriate time. If Opposition Members are really interested in these matters, I suggest that they read in Hansard precisely what was said in the other place, rather than relying on totally inaccurate reports of what was said by my noble Friend.
    Mr. Allason: How far into river estuaries is testing conducted? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that recent tests undertaken just off the coast of south Devon displayed figures of six times the acceptable rate of viral contamination?
    Mr. Howard: I am aware that those recent tests showed results which left a good deal to be desired, and those matters are being considered by the South West water authority.

    Bottle-nosed Dolphin
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that marine nature reserves are able to provide effective protection for the two remaining resident populations of the bottle-nosed dolphin in Cardigan bay and Moray firth.
    Mr. Ridley: My scientific advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, have no proposals for the designation of Cardigan bay or the Moray firth as marine nature reserves. They have no evidence to suggest that such action would be an effective measure to conserve the bottle-nosed dolphin. This species of dolphin is, of course, already protected by virtue of its listing in schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not time that we had more than one solitary marine nature reserve in this country? Indeed, is it not time that the Nature Conservancy Council was given power to prevent toxic pollution of marine nature reserves in addition to other coastal waters? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dolphins and other species are literally being driven to extinction in the seas around Britain because of the Government's determination to assert Britannia's right to foul the waves? Is he further aware that it is time that we surrendered some of that sovereignty to more responsible authorities in Europe?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must know that it is for the Nature Conservancy Council to suggest marine reserves, and I can only consider proposals put forward by that council. The hon. Gentleman is under a typical delusion in thinking that the death of the seals last year was due to pollution, whereas it is now known that it was due to virus diseases. It might help if the hon. Gentleman got his facts right, which is what I want to do before I propose any solutions concerned with dolphins.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the highly respected organisation Greenpeace will early next month be undertaking a survey of marine life in the Moray firth? Should Greenpeace produce evidence showing that steps need to be taken to protect the dolphin, the porpoise and other species, will the right hon. Gentleman act on it?
    Mr. Ridley: I am glad to say that I am not responsible for the activities of Greenpeace. The Natural Environment Research Council considers it inconceivable that there are only two remaining groups in United Kingdom waters of the bottle-nosed dolphin, which is what Greenpeace has apparently alleged.

    Rural Enterprise and Development
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will revise and reissue his Department's planning policy guidance note number seven, dated January 1988, on rural enterprise and development.
    Mr. Howard: We hope to do so later this year.
    Mr. Key: I am glad to hear that. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there is great concern in rural parts of Britain about inappropriate levels of development, particularly by parish councils. Does he agree that the circular was way ahead of most planning authorities, that district councillors tend not to read circulars, that they then do not agree with the advice of their professional officers and that events end up with the matter going on appeal to the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend and I wish that our circulars were more widely read. Indeed, I sometimes wish that a local authority controlled by the Labour party would take action to ban some of our circulars, as that would no doubt ensure that they received much wider circulation.

    Residential Property
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure that his Department is making the best use of its residential property.
    Mr. Chope: Where empty residential properties are not required for further Government use they are sold. If they cannot be sold because of legal restrictions, or sold within six months, they are offered first to the local housing authority and then to a housing association.
    Mrs. Clwyd: How does the Minister explain that, at a time of record homelessness, 5·5 per cent. of residential properties owned by his Department have been empty for more than a year—twice the national average for local authorities? Instead of admonishing local authorities to put their house in order, why does the Minister not do so?
    Mr. Chope: I welcome the hon. Lady's interest in the 38 vacant residential properties which is the total number owned by my Department. I hope that she is not trying to divert attention from over 100,000 properties owned by local authorities.

Drugs (Inner Cities)
3.31 pm
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the problem of drugs in inner cities in the light of the drug-related disturbances involving crack in Wolverhampton last night".
Only last night in the Chamber I highlighted the vast improvements in the quality of life for residents in the high-rise area of Heathtown, in my constituency. Therefore, it was like waking from a nightmare this morning to hear on the radio news that, as a result of a police raid at the Traveller's Rest public house in which 20 people were arrested, large amounts of cannabis and crack had been seized. I received a full report of the disturbance from acting Chief Superintendent Jones of the Wolverhampton police early this morning and I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
As a result of the vigilance of the people living at the heart of the Heathtown community in alerting the police of suspicious activities in recent weeks centering on their local public house, the police responded to their concerns, took out a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and mounted their initiative at 9.45 pm yesterday. Initially, it involved 120 police officers and subsequently 250 riot police.
It is unfortunate that hundreds of youths saw fit to take advantage of the situation and converged on the scene. I am sure that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens will join me in praising the police for their urgency and initiative in dealing with the drugs problem. The police were well prepared in terms of clothing, training and the use of a helicopters with a night-sight facility. Their actions demonstrate their ability to control and contain what could have escalated into a highly explosive incident. The evidence of crack for the first time in Wolverhampton could have serious consequences for the Wolverhampton community. I regret to say that my worst fears have been realised.
You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that, on 17 January this year I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and asked her to ensure that the Government were taking every possible step to deal with the problem of crack. I have been reassured by my right hon. Friend's actions. Crack is referred to as a drug of the under-class —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her three minutes and I have listened with concern to what she has said. She asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the problem of drugs in inner cities in the light of the drug-related disturbances involving crack in Wolverhampton last night."
As the hon. Lady knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that the
952
matter she has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit her application to the House.

Anglo-Soviet Relations
3.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the present crisis in Anglo-Soviet relations."
The matter is specific, in that the Soviet authorities have stated that the number of personnel of British institutions and missions in the Soviet Union must be reduced from 375 to 205. The latter figure is the quota allowed by the United Kingdom authorities for the personnel of Soviet institutions in this country. I would argue that the matter is important both for Anglo-Soviet relations, which have improved considerably—at least until the end of last week —and for British trade with the Soviet Union. The present crisis could cause immense damage to relations.
As Labour Members made perfectly clear in exchanges on a private notice question on Monday, we have no wish to condone actions by embassies in London, including the Soviet embassy, which would in any way undermine our national security. However, we are not convinced—I am certainly not convinced, as I pointed out on Monday—that the British Government did not have alternatives in this matter. We remain suspicious that the expulsions were carried out deliberately just before next week's NATO summit, at which the Prime Minister will press for the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons. Would such expulsions have taken place a week before Mr. Gorbachev came to this country?
These events are occurring at an important time for the Soviet Union. Tomorrow, for example, the new Parliament is due to meet. It is probably the first Parliament of its kind for 70 years because it will not be a rubber-stamp one. That is all the more reason why we should be able to have reports from journalists in the Soviet Union, but a number of British journalists are, unfortunately, likely to be expelled. I hope that, before the recess, we shall have an opportunity to debate these matters. It is extremely important that there should be good relations between the Soviet Union and ourselves. The sooner this crisis is over, the better.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will give careful and serious consideration to a debate on this subject.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the present crisis in Anglo-Soviet relations."
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take points of order at the moment because I must take a third application under Standing Order No. 20.

Interest Rates
3.37 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision to raise interest rates to 14 per cent. and its implications for the economic policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
Today's interest rate rise is the tenth in a year. It is of urgent and serious concern to industry, small businesses, farmers and home buyers, because, although there is to be no immediate rise in the mortgage rate, how long will it be before that follows? We are paying the price for the Chancellor's mistakes last year in both monetary policy and in stoking up demand in his Budget measures.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Prime Minister's remarks in the House yesterday, expressing confidence in the Chancellor, that started the run on the pound which has given rise to the interest rate increase. You may feel, therefore that a period of silence would be welcome and that if the Prime Minister were to say any more it might add to the problems of confidence.
The Prime Minister is answering to a large conference of Conservative ladies on these matters. She ought to answer to the House of Commons on them as well. She ought to answer for the mess of the Government's economic policy and for the deep disunity on fundamental economic issues which is at the heart of the Government. The House is entitled to know whether the Government are prepared to take steps to deal with the fundamental problems of inflation and the balance of payments, or whether we are to expect further interest rate rises to bolster confidence every time there is a run on the pound. The country is entitled to know, and to know now.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Bank of England's announcement of a percentage point rise in interest rates."
I regret that the matter does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way questioning your ruling on the application under Standing Order No. 20 of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), may I put it to you, in the presence of the Leader of the House, that since the developments in Anglo-Soviet relations, which concern a considerable number of hon. Members, have taken place since the debate on the spring Adjournment when we would have had the opportunity to raise them, and in view of the fact that we have only two more days left before the spring Adjournment, it would be
954
greatly appreciated if the Foreign Secretary were to consider making a statement on this matter before we rise for the recess.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that has been heard by the Leader of the House.

Points of Order
Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to column 255 in the Official Report of 16 May in which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is reported as having referred to a television programme on Tyne Tees and stated:
"The cat was let out of the bag during the debate when the regional organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union, Joe Mills, said:
"Of course things are better in the north-east now. It hurts me to have to say so but begrudgingly I have to say that Margaret Thatcher has been responsible for this."—[Official Report, 16 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 255.]
The latter paragraph is printed in the Official Report in a manner that suggests that it is an extract from the transcript of the television programme. However I have today received a copy of the transcript of the programme, and not only did Mr. Mills riot make any such statement, but in his only reference to the Prime Minister he said:
"The final point I want to make is this, I don't want to give Mrs. Thatcher any benefit at all, let's make that absolutely clear."
Is it not a gross abuse of the privilege of this House for the hon. Gentleman to have done that, and should he not apologise to the House and to Mr. Mills?
Mr. Speaker: That seems an extension of last week's debate. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot be responsible for what is said in the House, provided that it is in order.
Mr. Richard Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was informed just a few moments before 3.30 pm that the hon. Gentleman intended to make that personal attack, which gave me no opportunity to refer to anything. Anyone who watched the programme, as I did—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman did—would have known from the tenor of the programme that there was an admission by Joe Mills that it was the Government and the Prime Minister who had improved matters in the north-east—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on television yet.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the Standing Order No. 20 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question, which I believe is before the Select Committee on Procedure, about the way in which the House investigates difficult matters. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that when the Foreign Secretary made his original statement on this, I asked extremely clearly and politely whether he would refer it to the Security Commission. The Foreign Secretary chose not to reply to that question, although it was pressed from the Front Bench.
Subsequently, I tabled a question yesterday at the Table Office, which I believe was in total order:

955
"To ask the Prime Minister if she will refer the matters which led to the recent expulsion of Soviet diplomats to the Security Commission."
As very often happens now to hon. Members of all parties, but especially to Opposition Members, we get the monosyllabic answer, "No," and no explanation of any kind such as used to be given to the House by Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries.
There may be good reasons why this should not be referred to the Security Commission, but if the proper channels of communication are gone through when the proper questions are politely asked, does not the House of Commons, of which you are the protector, Mr. Speaker, at least deserve some kind of explanation in matters so grave and serious? After all, why do we have Lord Griffiths of Govilon at the Security Commission, Sir Philip Allen and other distinguished people, unless it is to deal with precisely such matters? In a way, it is circumventing not the constitution—we do not have one—but the traditional bastions of British security and intelligence.
Mr. Speaker: I fully understand the point that the hon. Member has made. Again, I cannot possibly be held responsible for answers to questions—provided that they are in order, of course.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter that I raise involves the Official Report of yesterday. In an intervention during a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), I said:
"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?".—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 893.]
That was a misquotation. The Editor of Hansard has checked the tape, and that passage should have read, "I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to speak to you."
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) indicated that I should be present at 3.30 this afternoon because he wished to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, my conduct in this matter. As he is not here, he must now accept the Official Report and your order yesterday—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to interrupt the hon. Member at this point. I confirm that he has had a letter from the Editor of Hansard, putting his correct words on the record. Furthermore, he has written to me on this matter, drawing to my attention the fact that it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, we cannot discuss it in the Chamber now.
Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
Dr. Michael Clark rose—
Mr. Speaker: In fairness, I will call the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).
Dr. Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night I was present in the House when the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made his accusation. I found his accusation so outrageous and so far from the truth that I did not believe that anyone could
956
take it seriously. I did not rise at that time to rebut it. It is true, however, that, after one hour of accusations from Opposition Members that I had behaved improperly in Committee, I left the Chamber after I had spoken. I went out that way—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is to me, not to hon. Members.
Dr. Clark: I left the Chamber, going that way out, and I saw the sponsors of the Bill. As I said, it was after one hour of being accused of impropriety by Opposition Members. As I went past the sponsors of the Bill, I said, "Since I am being accused of being in your pocket, I had better say hello to you." That is all I said; I said nothing else. Then there was uproar in the House as Labour Members objected to my being there. I stood there with my back to the House, saying nothing further until the House settled down. That is what I said. There was nothing improper.
I have made an appointment to see the Clerk of the House at 6.15 this evening to object in the strongest possible terms to the accusation by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that this matter has been referred to me as a matter of privilege.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: All hon. Members are aware that, when an issue is raised with the Speaker as a matter of privilege, it may not be raised in the Chamber.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mr. Speaker: It cannot be on this same matter.
Mr. Leigh: On a general point, Mr. Speaker. You have often reminded us that we are all hon. Members. Is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse a Chairman of a Select Committee of being in the pockets of one of the sponsors?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have said I cannot take points of order on this matter.
Mr. Kevin Barron: You have taken one from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
Mr. Speaker: I am not responding to it, and I am not taking further points of order on this matter. The House well knows the rules. When an issue is raised with the Chair as a matter of privilege, it may not be raised on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on a different matter?
Mr. Grocott: It is. It follows earlier exchanges about the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). It is clear that a correction will have to be made, in view of the admission of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order.
Mr. Grocott: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has clearly said that it was not a verbatim report that he was quoting in the House; it was his view of what he heard on a television programme. In Hansard it is clearly recorded as being a verbatim report of what occurred on a television programme; it is in inverted commas in the usual way. Clearly it is a serious matter that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh should have had such a grossly contorted view of a television programme and one that was different from that of everyone else who watched it. However, that is more a problem for the hon. Gentleman than for the House.
What is a matter for the House is that the hon. Gentleman purported to quote verbatim from a record —in the form of a video cassette, which could be checked —but now says that it was not a verbatim report but simply his general impression of what went on. That surely must warrant a correction.
Mr. Speaker: I will cause the Editor to look into the matter in the light of what has been said about it this afternoon.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It refers to yesterday but has nothing to do with the exchanges.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of amendments to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill were presented. I prepared most of them. I was aware of the difficult circumstances which surround the preparation or presentation of amendments to a private Bill that has not had a Report stage, which the Opposition regret. I was aware that such amendments had to be insubstantial in character, and I hope that I presented the amendments in an insubstantial way. I accept that some of them may have verged on the substantial, while others may have been too narrow or too broad, so that none of them was selected by you.
The point that I am raising, Mr. Speaker, is historically rather important, because people are asking me why those amendments were rejected. I have every confidence in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and I would not challenge it in any
958
way, but people interested in that Bill, in private Bill procedures now, and perhaps for the next 200 or 300 years, might benefit if you were to give the House some guidance on the nature of amendments that are likely to be accepted.
Could the Standing Orders of the House be made more precise so that hon. Members may have a way of obtaining an opportunity to debate a Bill in detail and avoid the situation that faced my hon. Friends and myself? We found it extremely difficult to oppose this dreadful Bill because of the absence of a Report stage and engaged in an unnecessary amount of work in regard to that Bill. Your advice to the House, Mr. Speaker, would be welcomed by the general public.
Mr. Speaker: I have a responsibility to the House, of course, rather than to the general public. The House will know that the question of verbal amendments to private Bills is set out at some length in "Erskine May".
Mr. Hardy: I looked at "Erskine May".
Mr. Speaker: I draw the hon. Member's attention to that. In any event, Madam Deputy Speaker gave an explanation, reported in Hansard in column 864, as to why the amendments had not been selected.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Was the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) in order when he raised his point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Yes; otherwise I would not have called him.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 JUNE
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Alan Meale

Mr. Dick Douglas

Mr. Michael Stern

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Set-Aside (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Car Telephones (Safety) Bill
3.54 pm
Mr. Douglas French: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enhance safety in the use of telephones in cars.
This Bill is a road safety measure. It addresses itself to the dangerous practice of driving a car with one hand on the steering wheel and the other hand holding a car telephone. That practice is becoming much too prevalent.
We have all seen people on motorways or driving round roundabouts more engrossed in their phone calls than in the road before them. That practice reduces the driver's control over the vehicle at a time when his concentration is, in any case, likely to be distracted by the call. It increases the chances of accidents and it should be stopped.
The first provision of the Bill is to require all such telephones to be of the hands-off type. That is to say, they should have remote microphones so that it is not necessary to speak directly into the mouthpiece and remote loudspeakers so that it is not necessary to hold the receiver to the ear to hear. Many car phones already have those facilities. All car phones should have them. The Bill would make it an offence for the driver of a moving car to use a phone which is not hands free.
The second dangerous practice which my Bill tackles is the way in which drivers dial the number of an outgoing call. If the dialling mechanism is in the handset, some drivers will hold the handset in one hand and key in the digits with the other. No hand is than available for the steering wheel. Some drivers rest the handset on the lower quarter of the steering wheel and steer the car with their wrists or their elbows. Others steer with their knees, which is not easy when one is driving round a corner.
I have considered carefully whether the Bill should stipulate that outgoing calls by the driver should require a voice-activated dialling facility. The technology for that exists and is in use, but it is much more expensive, not altogether reliable and must be reprogrammed for each individual driver. To insist on that provision, it seems to me, would place an unreasonable burden on equipment manufactures and users. The alternative is to require all numbers which are not voice activated to be preprogrammed using the facility which most car telephones already possess, whereby a number can be selected by keying in only one, or at most two, digits. My Bill would make it an offence for a driver to call an outgoing number except by voice-activated or pre-programmed dialling.
The third danger which the Bill addresses is the extent to which drivers take their eyes off the road while operating telephones. That happens because phones are often located well below dashboard level on a centre console near the gear lever. To dial even a short number from a unit fixed in that position diverts the driver's eyes from the road for several seconds. My Bill therefore provides that all the controls should be fixed towards the top of the fascia so that the driver's eyes remain in the line of vision of the windscreen and the road.
All these changes relate to the design and fitting of telephones used by a driver of a car while it is in motion. The same problems do not arise when a telephone is used by a passenger or when the vehicle is stationary.
I propose two exceptions to the general rule: lorries should be exempt because the high level of noise in the
960
driver's cabin would render remote microphones and remote loudspeakers ineffective; taxis and certain emergency vehicles should be excluded for much the same reasons that they were excluded from the seat belt legislation.
During the past year I, like other hon. Members, have asked a series of parliamentary questions to draw attention to these problems. The answers which I received were not always illuminating. In reply to a question on 20 June last year about voice-activated dialling, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said:
"Our advice is clear: anyone who can afford a car phone can afford a hands-free microphone."—[Official Report, 20 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 444.]
That answer does him less than credit. It suggests that the problem has been treated less seriously than it deserves, which is an impression confirmed by the complete absence of any reference to the subject in the recent White Paper entitled "The Road User and the Law."
It may be argued that current legislation already gives the police adequate powers to prosecute a driver who uses a car phone dangerously. Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 covers driving without due care and attention, and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 make it an offence not to have proper control of a vehicle. However, that legislation provides the statutory basis for a prosecution once the danger has been caused. My Bill, apart from being much more specific, is preventative: it seeks to prevent what would be an offence under those provisions from taking place.
Does not the Highway Code already do that? It states:
"Do not use a hand held microphone or telephone handset while your vehicle is moving, except in an emergency. Do not stop on the hard shoulder of a motorway to answer a call, however urgent".
That is sound advice. Unfortunately, too few people read the Highway Code, and, of those, even fewer take notice of it. Furthermore, it is only advisory and failure to observe its provisions is not an offence, even though such failure may be adduced in evidence in other proceedings. What is needed, which my Bill provides, is a clear and firm framework of law, with appropriate penalties. I envisage the penalties being incorporated into the points system.
Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the problem has only to consider that the number of car telephones in use has nearly doubled in the past 18 months. The number is now in excess of 400,000. By 1991, it is likely to top 1 million. That is a very large number of drivers who are in less than full control of their vehicles. Those figures apply only to fitted cellular car phones. The totals will be considerably more, and the danger much greater, as portable telephones become more powerful and capable of in-car use.
Legislation may not look easy to enforce, but it need be no more difficult than it was for seat belts. Despite the claim that the seat belt rules would be unenforceable, the usage rate for belts rose from 30 per cent. before legislation to 90 per cent. after it. The emphasis of my Bill is on the design and fitting of the equipment. If that is right, the correct usage of it will follow.
I regard car telephones as an increasingly essential amenity of modern business life. I do not wish to restrict their freedom of use. However, I want them to be used in a way that is safe and sensible and does not spell danger to other road users. I believe that my Bill achieves that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Porter and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

Car Telephones (Safety) Bill
  CAR TELEPHONES (SAFETY)
  Mr. Douglas French accordingly presented a Bill to enhance safety in the use of telephones in cars: 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 148.]

  DOCK WORK BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Ordered,
  That the Report [23rd May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  Report considered accordingly.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee), and agreed to.
  Following is the report of the Business Committee:
  That on the allotted day which under the Order [8th May] is to be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion as follows:

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  New Clauses

  6 p.m.

  Remaining proceedings on Consideration

  8 p.m.

  Third Reading

  Midnight

Orders of the Day
  Dock Work Bill
    ALLOTTED DAY
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    New Clause 1

      COMPENSATION FOR FORMER REGISTERED DOCK WORKERS
      `(1) Any dock worker to whom the Scheme applied shall be entitled, on leaving employment as a dock worker, to a payment of £6,000 plus £3,000 for each complete year of employment under the Scheme.

      (2) Payments under subsection (1) shall be funded on an equal basis by the Secretary of State and former registered employers.

      (3) This section shall lapse ten years after the passing of this Act unless renewed by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher].

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.7 pm
      Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in line 12, leave out clause 5.
      Mr. Meacher: New clause 1 is designed with a simple but important purpose: to offer to dock workers made redundant after the abolition of the dock labour scheme, a level of compensation which more closely matches that which is available in other industries. For dock workers made redundant in the first 18 months after abolition, the Government propose a lump sum of £5,000, plus £2,000 for every full year of work, up to a maximum of 1.35,000. Those made redundant in the following 18 months will receive £5,000, plus £1,000 for every full year of service, up to a maximum of £20,000.
      We propose a lump sum of £6,000, plus £3,000 for each complete year of employment under the scheme.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: That is not good enough.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend says that that is not good enough. I take his point, but we shall be happy to settle for it if the Government concede it. It means that a dock worker who has served 15 years would receive £51,000 in compensation, and a dock worker who had worked 20 years would receive £66,000. Those may sound quite large figures, but they are in line with redundancy compensation currently being paid under other schemes.
      The redundant mineworkers payment scheme is, in many respects, more generous than the Government's draft proposals for dock workers. Older mineworkers who are made redundant receive a lump sum based on age, length of service and pay, plus a weekly benefit. If those figures are added together, they amount to a substantial sum.
      I have a British Coal press release, dated 7 October 1986, which quotes an average—I emphasise "average" —figure of £74,600 redundancy payment for men made

      963
      redundant at the age of 50 to 54. Some will receive more than that. It is against that comparison that the Opposition have drawn up their proposals.
      It is only fair to point out that the Government scheme for mineworkers has been replaced by British Coal's own scheme. Although it is not as generous as the Government's proposals for dock workers, under the British Coal scheme, redundant mineworkers with 15 or more years, service are paid an additional lump sum of £7,500, plus £500 a year for service aged between 16 to 34, and £750 a year for service aged 35 to 65. On top of that, statutory redundancy pay can be paid, so that the maximum total is nearly £40,600 for someone with maximum service who retires before his or her 60th birthday. That figure is considerably more than the one proposed in the Government scheme for redundant dock workers, especially those who lose their jobs in the second 18-month period after the abolition, when, as I have said, they will receive a maximum of only £20,000. In other words, they will receive only half as much as is payable under the British Coal scheme, which is itself less generous than the redundant mineworkers' payment scheme.
      The level of compensation that we propose is not particularly out of line with the redundancy terms current in many parts of the private sector. I went to some trouble to obtain an Industrial Relations Service publication which reviews 22 redundancy pay agreements made in 1988. It quotes a good many examples in considerable detail. It tells us for example, that the Alliance and Leicester building society provides payments of up to £60,000 for some senior managers. It may be said that managers constitute a different layer of the work force, but another example given is Express Newspapers, which provides up to £50,000 for members of the National Graphical Association as part—not all—of the severance terms covering job losses caused by major reorganisation of the group. Those, too, are substantially more generous than what the Government proposed.
      I am not sure whether the phrase "brass handshake" has been used before, but it seems appropriate. Such handshakes are now fairly common throughout industry. I have deliberately abstained from citing the growing number of golden handshakes of which we hear fairly regularly from board rooms. Only six weeks ago, however, amid all the fuss about Blue Arrow's £25 million loan to Peter de Savary—in which the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was involved—we were told that Mr. John Sharkey has been paid off handsomely with a golden handshake of £225,000. All I can say is that he is lucky not to have been a docker; if he had been, he would have received about one seventh of that sum.
      Again, two months ago, amid all the rumpus over the sale of three cemeteries by Lady Porter, it emerged that the lips of Westminster council's chief executive had been sealed with a £1 million golden handshake. It is a pity that the dock workers are not privy to a few more secrets. As people always say, what counts is not what a person does or how long he has been doing it, but who he knows—or, perhaps even more important, what he knows.
      The new clause proposes that dock workers who have given a lifetime's service to the ports should receive proper and just recompense for the compulsory termination of their livelihood when, if they are over 50, they have little
      964
      chance of obtaining an alternative job. Unemployment is significantly higher in the scheme port travel-to-work areas. I have checked the facts: male unemployment in those areas averages 11·5 per cent., which is well above the national average. I am not saying that that figure is absolutely correct—I believe it understates the position —but, whatever the correct figure, the difference in relative terms is substantial.
      It has been calculated, moreover, that unemployed men in scheme port areas have less than a 40 per cent. chance of obtaining a job—and, of course, the older they are the smaller the chance will be. Those older men will be the most affected by the compulsory redundancies that are about to be handed out. The latest count of the ages of registered dock workers produced an average age of 46.7, largely because of the port employers' unwise decision to get rid of so many younger men. Now it is those above that age whom they are most anxious to displace. Already the average number of unemployed over-forties in scheme port areas is 24 per cent., and that number is undoubtedly set to increase significantly when the Bill is implemented.
      We simply propose that older men who are deprived of their jobs by compulsory Government-instigated reorganisation schemes, and who in many cases will probably never be able to work again, should be compensated in accordance with best practice for the loss forced on them. "In accordance with the best practice" is the crucial phrase: I am not saying that the terms are mean, but they are not best practice and we believe that they should be. The Government's proposals do not meet our criterion, and we are seeking to improve them.
      4.15 pm
      It is not as though either the National Association of Port Employers or the Government cannot meet those obligations. I need not remind the House that corporate profitability now stands at its highest for at least a decade, and the port employers in particular have not been doing too badly in recent years. The annual report of Associated British Ports, the largest employer, shows profits of £38 million in 1987, a 46 per cent. increase. In the first half of 1988, the company's profits rose by a further 59 per cent., and dividends per share by 25 per cent. Sir Keith Stuart, chairman of ABP, described it modestly as "a highly successful year"—as well he might, as he increased his own salary by 23 per cent. in 1987 to £97,000. Last year, deciding that he must keep the wolf from the door, he increased it by a further 23 per cent. to a modest £120,000.
      The Opposition say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If ABP is making profits hand over fist, if its chairman can pay himself a six-figure salary and greedily award himself a 23 per cent. increase two years running, and, above all, if it is to make an extra £20 million in profits from the scheme's abolition as it claims, it can expect to pay a proper whack to those on whose backs it has made those growing profits, and whom it now intends to throw on the scrap heap so that it can increase those profits still further.
      The money is there. One side—the company, its shareholders and its managers—is receiving enormous increases; only the dock workers are not receiving that level of remuneration. It cannot be said that the Government are exactly pinched at present, with an unprecedented Budget surplus of over £15 billion. The redundancy proposals in the Bill have been costed by the

      965
      Government at about £25 million. Our alternative proposals would cost about £35 million, not a great deal more.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Not much for a Socialist.
      Mr. Meacher: As they have £15 billion or more to dispense with, an extra £10 million for making 2,000 people redundant is something that the Government could well afford. That was a very foolish interjection.
      Our proposal constitutes a much fairer distribution of Government funds than general Exchequer Budget policy.
      According to a parliamentary answer of 17 May, last year, 100,000 people in Britain with salaries of more than £70,000 per year have, over the past 10 years of Tory Budgets, received an average cut in their income tax worth no less than £37,550. If the richest people in this country who do not need a penny in extra assistance are given largesse by the Government of £37,550 each year, those whom the Government make redundant and who may never get another job deserve a good deal more than a one-off payment of less than £37,550.
      In Committee, the only argument made by the Minister for Public Transport—not the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who is on the Government Front Bench today, but it is said that Ministers take collective responsibility—for refusing a better level of compensation for redundant dock workers was that higher compensation payments previously paid to miners were "exceptional". He stated:
      "It is true that a few years ago some miners received much higher compensation payments than will be available under the Bill. However, I emphasise that the circumstances of the industry at that time and the miners who received such payments were exceptional."
      As though the abolition of the dock labour scheme is not highly exceptional. In trying to justify his claim that nothing special is proposed in respect of the docks, the Minister added:
      "I should not imagine that the rate of loss of men from the industry would be entirely out of scale"—
      he meant, as a result of the scheme's abolition—
      "with what has happened in recent years."
      However, the Minister's own figures reveal that abolition will, not surprisingly, be both out of the ordinary and exceptional. In Committee, the Minister for Public Transport also stated:
      "The … £25 million that we have included in the explanatory and financial memorandum would cover between 1,500 and 2,000 redundancies".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 May 1989, c. 505–37.]
      That number of redundancies represents between 16 and 21 per cent. of the entire work force under the scheme. To get rid of one fifth of the work force and claim that such action is in no way exceptional is either cynical or extremely disingenuous.
      Those redundancies represent a far quicker rundown than has occurred in the past. In 1983, there were more than 14,500 registered dock workers but now there are only 9,400, which represents an average decline of 840 per year. Under the Bill, the Government intend to bring about between two and three times more redundancies than in the past decade. Why did they bring in the Bill otherwise? Of course its intention is to increase redundancies. Even the present Government, whose record of concern over unemployment does not place them
      966
      in the first ranks of compassion, must acknowledge that that is an exceptional level of redundancy and one which commands an exceptional level of compensation.
      New clause 1 will go a long way to countering some of the most malign consequences of this miserable little Bill. Given that the port employers have amassed huge profits in recent years, and have stated openly that they will make an additional packet out of sacking one fifth of their work force under the Bill, it is only right and just that dock workers should enjoy redundancy terms at least as good as the current best practice in other industries. I stress that we are not asking for a bigger pay-off that they can take and run with, because dock workers will receive those redundancy payments only if their employers decide to sack them. Redundancy will not be a choice that they can make for themselves. In those circumstances, we say that decency and justice require a more reasonable and upbeat deal than the distinctly unexceptional offer provided for in the Bill.
      If the Government were as generous to dock workers and to trade unionists as they are to employers and to top-rate taxpayers, they would embrace the new clause with all the eagerness with which we press it.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr.. Meacher) made clear, new clause 1 proposes a compensation scheme to replace that suggested by the Government. The Labour party scheme—although in fairness I should call it the Meacher scheme, because the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has already made clear his view that his hon. Friend's scheme is not generous enough—is considerably more generous, and in some cases would pay the sum of £130,000. The Opposition scheme operates on a basis different from that included in the Bill and in the draft regulations that back it up, which amendment No. 3 seeks to omit.
      The generosity of the Opposition's proposals gives an interesting insight into their view of the scheme's value to a registered dock worker. It is not only that the amounts of money differ but the entire basis is different, even though the hon. Member for Oldham, West, in his closing remarks, suggested that the basis of new clause 1 is essentially similar to that of our scheme.
      The Government's proposals in clause 5 and in the regulations provide for enhanced redundancy pay for registered dockers who lose their jobs in the changes following termination of the scheme. The proposals in new clause I involve paying every registered dock worker who leaves the industry, for whatever reason, just because he is a registered dock worker. Under both schemes, the Government will normally pay half the cost, with the employers paying the other half. However, if an employer goes out of business and cannot meet his obligations, the Government's scheme will pay the entire cost so that the former docker will receive the full amount even if his employer becomes insolvent.
      As I understand Labour's scheme, the Government would only ever pay half the cost, so if the employer cannot meet his obligation to pay the balance the docker will receive only half the sum due to him. That arrangement has some interesting consequences, to which I shall refer shortly. Perhaps it is intended to reward employees of profitable firms, for that is its effect. That is an interesting if slightly odd example of profit sharing. I certainly support the principle of profit sharing, but the

      967
      Opposition's proposals are not a very sound application of it. I would rather see port companies negotiating more conventional profit-sharing schemes with their employees.
      At first glance, the Opposition's improvements may seem modest, offering as they do basic compensation of £6,000 plus £3,000 per year of employment, compared with our proposal for initial compensation of £5,000 plus £2,000 per year of employment. Under the Government scheme, there is a maximum payable of £35,000, whereas the Opposition impose no limit, except the arithmetic maximum of £132,000.
      4.30 pm
      We are proposing that payments should be paid in full only in the first 18 months and at lesser rates, as the hon. Gentleman said, for a further 18 months. The Opposition have a theoretical time of 10 years—theoretical for a reason that I shall come to—but, crucially, the Government are proposing to pay dockers made redundant whereas the new clause proposes to pay any registered docker who stops dock work.
      The Government's scheme has a taper as retirement approaches because, beyond the age of 62½, redundancy has a more short-term effect. That is one of the differences between a redundancy scheme and a scheme for paying former dockers whenever they leave dock work.
      The last difference between the two schemes has a particularly interesting consequence for the older docker. Consider the case of two dock workers aged 64 approaching retirement. Suppose that both dockers had worked all their lives in the docks and been registered dock workers ever since the scheme started in 1946. One of them, whom I shall call Mr. Meacher in order to attract the Opposition's sympathy, was a little older than his colleague, whom I shall call Alf Garnett. My theoretical Mr. Meacher's 65th birthday falls just before Royal Assent, whereas that of my theoretical Alf Garnett falls just after. Both retire on the same pension, but Alf Garnett will receive an additional £132,000—£6,000 plus £3,000 for each of the 42 years of the scheme because his birthday was a week or a month after that of his colleague. That would be his bonus for being one of the last of the registered dock workers. I imagine that the theoretical Mr. Meacher would be furious about that, but, in contrast, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has recommended the scheme to the House and we shall presumably vote on it shortly.
      That points up what I said about the different basis of the Opposition's scheme. The Opposition's scheme is a reward for having been a registered dock worker, but the Government's scheme is an enhanced redundancy scheme, which is what it sets out to be. We recognise that there may be some redundancies when the scheme ends. We cannot tell how many—nobody can. Overmanning is a consequence of the scheme. We realise that the relatively generous voluntary severance payments will stop and we aim to compensate at a suitable rate those who find themselves redundant as a consequence.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask a simple question? A number of my colleagues have been reliably informed that Sir Jeffrey Sterling, chairman of P and 0, has been ringing the Department of Employment —perhaps even the Minister's private office—on matters relating to the Bill and the possibility of industrial action
      968
      in the docks. Will the Minister tell us exactly what those telephone calls were about? Were they about the proposals before the House today? It is in the interests of the general public and the industry to know about the special relationship that exists at times such as this between major business men and Ministers in Her Majesty's Government.
      Mr. Cope: I know of no telephone calls of that sort to my private office or to the Department. For all I know, there may have been some to the Department, but certainly not to my private office, and I am not conscious of any having been received by the Department.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the Minister automatically be informed of telephone calls on such matters by his Department's officials or by people in his private office?
      Mr. Cope: That would depend on the content of the telephone calls, whether they were significant and what was happening. If they were significant, yes, I would be told.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of making the terms of redundancy too generous is that people will decide that they want to be made redundant and will do everything possible to achieve that? I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that we should be trying to encourage more employment in the docks. Therefore, to make the Government's already generous terms even more generous would be self-defeating.
      Mr. Cope: That is one of the consequences, as I propose to explain.
      Under the new clause, any registered dock worker who leaves dock work will receive the money. Why he leaves does not matter. He may have been convicted of and sacked for stealing. Examples were given in Committee of registered dock workers convicted of stealing whose employers were, under the scheme, made to continue employing them. But that is another story. Under the new clause, a registered dock worker of 30 years' standing who was sacked for stealing would nevertheless be paid £96,000.
      Similarly, a docker with 30 years' service, sacked for persistent absenteeism—he might have got into the habit of bobbing off and not got out of it quickly—would, under the new clause, be paid £96,000, not for stopping doing the job—after all, that is why he was sacked—but for having been a registered dock worker. That is an interesting commentary on the Labour party's view of the value of the scheme to a registered dock worker.
      I wonder what other workers in the docks think about the Opposition's proposal—if they are aware of it. Registered dock workers are only one third of the employees of registered port employers. I wonder what the rest of them think about it. For that matter, I wonder what members of the Transport and General Workers Union think about the proposals. We know from something that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) complained about in Committee that the TGWU has not been providing its supporters in Committee with much guidance, so it may not have seen the proposals. However, if it has not, it should look at them carefully.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) said in an intervention, the Opposition's scheme will also provide registered dock workers with a

      969
      considerable incentive to leave dock work. The lump sum payable is calculable at the time of Royal Assent and does not thereafter increase. A registered dock worker aged 40 with 20 years' service would immediately be paid £66,000 if his employer was solvent. If he worked on in the docks for another nine years, he would be paid £66,000 in nine years' time, again if his employer was still solvent. That demonstrates my hon. Friend's point.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I am relatively new to these debates, but can my hon. Friend illuminate one point? Under the new clause, would a registered dock worker be able to take some other employment for a period and then return to the docks, perhaps to a non-scheme port, having claimed the full amount of the large redundancy payment to which he had become entitled?
      Mr. Cope: As the new clause stands, yes. In addition, such a man would be able to return to employment in the same port where he had previously been employed. He would he able to return to employment with the same employer after an interval and still qualify. I used the period of nine years in my example, but, under the new clause, after 10 years the scheme may or may not come to an end. There is provision for it to be extended, but only by leave of the House. In practice, that would not matter, since I assume that most former registered dock workers would have taken their money long before and left, even if they were to return, as my hon. Friend has said.
      I am not sure whether all the employers would last that long. Any employer who had, say, 100 dockers with an average of 20 years' service would have to provide in his accounts at once on Royal Assent for a potential liability of £3·3 million. I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost of his scheme; it would be far higher than he suggested. I have not worked out what effect it would have on each of the companies currently employing registered dock workers, but it would make life extremely difficult financially for some of them. I spoke of a potential liability—
      Mr. Meacher: The Minister appears to be having a great deal of fun. He is both frivolous and rather silly in his criticisms of the new clause. We are not drafting legislation —[Interruption.] It is true, and it is always the case with Oppositions. The new clause does not mean that any dock worker could simply choose to take the money and run. The payments are quite clearly to be given only after a dock worker has been made redundant by his employer. The Minister's figures are figments of his imagination.
      Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman's comments are very interesting because they mean that the new clause has been tabled on a false basis. The new clause, together with amendment No. 3, removes from the Bill all provisions relating to redundancy. The Opposition could have left them in, but they did not. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that he does not support the basis of the clause. In that case, will he assure the House that he will not vote for it? The House is being treated in a rather peculiar manner. It has been presented with a new clause with which the hon. Gentleman now says he does not agree.
      Mr. Michael Brown: This is almost a contempt of the House. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tabled a new clause that, presumably, he hopes to persuade the House to accept. My
      970
      right hon. Friend has devastatingly shown why it should not be accepted. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, obviously having been convinced by my right hon. Friend's argument, now says that he does not expect the House to agree to it. It is incredible that my right hon. Friend should be expected to respond in all seriousness, as he is doing, to the debate when the hon. Member for Oldham, West has admitted that his new clause is an absolute sham.
      Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend is right and I find myself in some difficulty. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has given up his new clause before I have finished opposing it. I have more to say, but I do not know whether to proceed —[Interruption.] It appears that the hon. Gentleman still intends to vote for his new clause and to recommend his hon. Friends to do so. That is rather peculiar.
      It is not right to reward men simply for having been registered dock workers.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is time that the Minister stopped all this frivolity and dealt with the serious question before us. His behaviour today is similar to his behaviour in Committee. The Government are treating the Bill as a joke. The Minister should deal seriously with the new clause, because men's livelihoods is a serious issue, and should be treated as such.
      Mr. Cope: I agree that it is a serious issue, but it is not a serious new clause. It clearly provides that there should be compensation for all registered dock workers. The Labour party is not alone in proposing that idea; others have suggested the same. I am glad that, apparently, the hon. Member for Oldham, West intends to withdraw it.
      The Government's proposal provides for a maximum of £35,000, which is a fair and suitable sum in the circumstances. It compares reasonably with the voluntary severance payment now available, which is usually a maximum of £25,000, although under special arrangements some people have received as much as £35,000.
      The Labour party's proposal—even if, as the hon. Gentleman now says, it applies only to redundancy—multiplies the present usual maximum by five. That is an enormous increase. The new clause is put forward on a false basis and does not deserve the support of eNen the hon. Gentleman. It tells us a great deal about the value that the Labour party places on registered dock work. It believes that maximum compensation should be increased fivefold. The new clause is fatally flawed, and should not be accepted by the House.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: I support the new clause because there are several hundred dock workers in my constituency and several of them are good friends of mine. Dock workers are usually sensible and sound members of the community. If they had been here today to witness the Minister's frivolous contributions they would have recognised that it was just a poor, sixth-form debating society speech and not a serious response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
      It was only today that I had the benefit of reading the new clause, and my understanding of it is rather different from that of the Minister. If the drafting is in any way defective so that the new clause does not achieve what we want—enhanced payments for dockers who will he made

      971
      redundant under the Bill—I am sure that my hon. Friend would readily agree to it being redrafted by the Government's draftsmen to ensure that our aims are achieved. The House has been treated to a 20-minute discourse of banal triviality that is unworthy of the Minister and does not help those whom we seek to represent.
      My hon. Friend referred to generous payments—I prefer to describe them as further payments—to those made redundant. I want to make two points that, as yet, have received little attention. The old image of a dock worker heaving about heavy cargoes went out of the window with the mechanisation of the ports. I do not profess to be an expert, but I know from my acquaintances that dock work is now a highly skilled job. Those skills are constantly being reviewed and updated and the dock workers have to attend training courses to keep up with advances in technology. That is not uncommon. An increasing number of technical skills are required in most industries. The kind of skills that registered dock workers have cannot easily and readily be transferred to another industry. That is an important point to bear in mind when we consider compensation.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is making exactly the point that was made on Second Reading and in Committee—that because the ports have become automated the old dockers' jobs have disappeared. Many of the registered dock workers do not have the new skills that they need to use technical equipment, so they sit around ghosting the people who do the work. They need to be retrained for the new skills, but they will not get the new skills by sitting around and doing nothing while other people do the work.
      Mr. Howarth: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but it is fairly well known that employers have not provided the amount of training that is necessary for dock workers to use the new equipment.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: They have refused to give training.
      Mr. Howarth: Yes, they have refused to provide it.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: Let me finish this point and then I will give way.
      Many of the dock workers that I know, as well as many of the dock workers in Liverpool, are highly skilled. They use all kinds of complicated equipment to move cargoes from one place to another and to load it on to ships.
      Mr. Bennett: It is quite extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman now to say—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is shouting. He should try to intervene while the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is speaking rather than while I am intervening during the hon. Gentleman's speech. That would be more helpful.
      The hon. Member for Knowsley, North ought to be aware that in Committee his side moved amendments to replicate the training scheme that is provided under the national dock labour scheme in the non-scheme ports. He is now telling us that the employers in the scheme ports are
      972
      not providing training. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either they are providing training or they are not. Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, has an excellent training scheme. We want that to be replicated after the national dock labour scheme has gone into abeyance.
      Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that that takes us any further. Our point is that there is not enough training. It is difficult to get the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to understand even the simplest concept, but let me explain what we want. He should watch my lips. We want the best practices to be transferred to the dock workers training system. That is not necessarily a bad thing, so we can have it both ways. We can say that there is not enough training, and we can also say that where the best training is provided we want it to be replicated throughout the industry. It is as simple as that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred to the coal mining industry. It is a good comparison. It is not just a job that dock workers do. It is a way of life. A docker does not go to work for a certain number of hours a day where he carries out a certain job. A whole way of life is attached to dock work. As with the coalfields, there are whole communities of dock workers. There is a long tradition attached to dock work. A social network is based upon it. If we take away the employment of a registered dock worker, we take away not just a job for which he needs certain skills that cannot easily be transferred to another industry; we also take away a way of life that may have been in existence for several generations.
      Mr. David Davis: I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what are those skills that cannot be transferred. He talks about the automation of the ports. That means heavy cranes, forklift trucks and mechanical shovels. Most of the training for using that equipment is done in the construction industry. That would be an alternative use of dockers' skills. Forklift trucks and the mechanical handling of goods can be found in every factory and warehouse in the country. What is non-transferable about those skills? What are the greater skills that dockers claim to have?
      Mr. Howarth: First, they have a combination of skills. Secondly, I do not profess to be an expert upon it but I understand that most of the equipment—[Interruption.] I can see that there is a lifetime of experience among Conservative Members of working with their hands in the ports. I doubt whether any of them have any knowledge of it whatsoever, yet they criticise the Opposition.
      Most of the equipment is specifically designed and custom-built for work of that nature. It is not a question of dockers being able easily to transfer their skills to another industry. They have experience of using equipment for a specific purpose. That equipment is often not used in exactly the same way in other industries.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: No. I have given way quite enough.
      For all those reasons, the level of compensation for which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has argued is appropriate and fair. Despite the juvenile behaviour of many of those who sit on the Conservative Benches, I hope that the Minister will take our point

      973
      seriously. Even at this late hour, and even after such frivolous responses to it, I hope that he will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Michael Brown: The Labour party's support today for dock workers is touching. It is a pity that the Opposition did not support the dockers yesterday. I represent the port of Immingham. Many registered dockers work in the port. I guess that they would have much more respect for the Labour party and the new clause if the Opposition had given a little more support yesterday to the dockers and had thought a little more about their future.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), referred to Associated British Ports and its profitability and to the need to use some of its profits to compensate the dockers. The dockers of Immingham would like Associated British Ports to be able to spend its profits on investment in the port of Immingham, to the tune of £30·5 million, in order to enable the port to attract the largest vessels in the world.
      The port of Immingham was built in 1912. Its lock gates, which were installed in 1912, do not now allow the largest ships in the world to enter the port. Those ships have to go to Rotterdam. The port of Immingham—a scheme port—is trying to become competitive. It is trying to ensure the livelihood of dockers by bringing new jobs to the port, by expanding the port and by ensuring that the port can go forward into the 21st century. But what does the Labour party do?
      Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brown: Let me finish this point and then I shall gladly give way.
      The Labour party had its chance last night to demonstrate its genuine support for the registered dock workers of Immingham, so I am not taking any lectures from the Opposition and I advise my hon. Friends not to take any lectures from them about their support for dockers. When it came to the test of whether the Opposition were prepared to support the expansion of the dock industry, we found that their support was not there last night. Whenever the Opposition have had an opportunity to show it, it has never been there. We should bear that point very much in mind before we consider accepting the new clause.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Does he not agree that last night the Labour payroll vote, sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers, was here to sabotage our Bill? Whenever the Opposition have a chance to help dockers, where are they? They are not here this afternoon.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was still on his preamble, but he should come to today rather than deal with what happened last night.
      Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who represents the port of King's Lynn, is doing his utmost, in a much more practica.' way than the new clause would ever do, to provide for the future of dockers. Conservative Members, by supporting
      974
      the Bill and resisting the new clause, want to ensure that there is freedom in the docks industry to employ more dockers.
      5 pm
      The new clause is nonsense. We had the admission from the hon. Member for Oldham, West that it is a joke clause; he more or less said that. He objected when my right hon. Friend the Minister went to great lengths to advise the House about why we should reject the new clause. If I had been minded to support the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the basis that it must be right to increase the amount of compensation for someone being made redundant, my right hon. Friend would have been negligent in his duty to the House if he had not drawn my attention and the attention of other hon. Members to what could happen if we voted for the new clause.
      A docker in the registered docks of Immingham could cease to be a registered docker, not through redundancy but voluntarily, because he saw an advertisement in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph for work in the non-scheme port of New Holland, four miles down the road in my constituency, or perhaps in Gunness, 14 miles down the road in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Under the proposals in the new clause, that dock worker could leave Immingham with up to £132,000 in his back pocket, and walk or take his car down the road to Scunthorpe, New Holland, Barrow or Gunness wharf and take a new job. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was correct to draw attention to the effects of the new clause.
      Labour Members should not say, "We are the Opposition; we do not have a constructive role to play in the House." Surely it is their duty to consider the consequences of new clauses that they table. It is just possible that some foolish Conservative Members, who did not listen with the care and attention that they should to Ministers at the Dispatch Box, might be tempted to vote for this extraordinary new clause. Thankfully, the hon. Member for Oldham, West more or less told the House that he did not expect the new clause to be taken seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister takes his duties seriously. In his response to the Opposition he rightly drew the attention of the House to the consequences of the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West made unfair comments about Sir Keith Stuart. Sir Keith has been chairman of Associated British Ports since it became a private company. Before that he was chairman of the old British Transport Docks Board, which was a great favourite of the Labour party. Sir Keith should be congratulated on securing the future of dockers and on creating profitability for Associated British Ports, which does not want to sack every docker. It wants opportunities to create more jobs in the docks industry. The dock labour scheme and restrictive new clauses such as that proposed by the Opposition would shackle prospects for dockers and for the profitability of Associated British Ports. They would also restrict opportunities for more new jobs in my constituency.
      We must resist the new clause because it would lead to a scandalous waste of resources. The compensation proposed by the Government is fair. It strikes the right balance and ensures at the same time that dockers can look

      975
      to a future based not on the restrictive practices of the past but on their ability to seize the opportunities that exist in this great industry.
      The dockers in my constituency know which political party stands up for their interests. They know what happened last night in the House, and they will be waiting to see what happens in the future. They will not be seduced by the new clause. That is not the way for the Labour party to buy the votes of dockers in my constituency. Those dockers know that only one political party will look after their interests. They know which political party safeguarded their long-term interests.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has dealt with development proposals for the port of Immingham. My mind goes back some years to a time when similar proposals were put forward for the port of Bristol. Very wisely, as has been borne out by events, the Labour Government turned down those proposals. Subsequently, the Conservative party realised that there were marginal seats to be won in the city of Bristol. It stated that if it were returned to power at a subsequent election, it would give the go-ahead for development in Bristol. The dock was built as a result of authorisation by the Conservative Government, but it has been a disaster. Bristol could not give it away; it has become a heavy load on the ratepayers of the city.
      I support the new clause which sets out proposals to try to combat the worst provisions of this hasty Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) set out the case for the new clause. Throughout the proceedings in Committee, my hon. Friend was the voice of reason, as he was this afternoon. He gave glaring examples of people who have received huge amounts of compensation, but when we ask for a little more for dockers we are ridiculed. All we hear from the Conservative side is mirth and laughter.
      Subsection (1) of the new clause says:
      "Any dock workers to whom the Scheme applied shall be entitled, on leaving employment as a dock worker, to a payment of £6,000 plus £3,000 for each complete year of employment under the Scheme."
      That is not really generous when one considers that the Bill was introduced so hastily and that the livelihood of people is at stake.
      In a press notice issued on 11 May, subsequently amplified in Committee by the Minister, the Government indicated that any dock worker made redundant within three years of the legislation receiving Royal Assent would be entitled to a special lump sum payment. For instance, if the dock worker was made redundant in the first 18 months, he would be eligible for a maximum of £35,000, based on 15 years' service. It is worth reminding the House of the provisions. The Government proposed that the payment would be made up of a lump sum of £5,000, plus £2,000 for every complete year of service. The mean side of the Government was revealed when they said that the amount of compensation will be tapered off for every registered dock worker over 62½ years old. For every three months by which he exceeds 62½ years when he is dismissed, his compensation will be reduced by 10 per cent.
      In comparing new clause 1 with the Government's provisions, it is necessary to consider the age of registered dock workers. It tends to be an aged work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that that is due
      976
      to the stupidity of employers in the past in getting rid of their younger employees. Only 19 per cent. of registered dock workers are under 40 years of age; 41 per cent. are between 40 and 50 and more than 40 per cent. are 50 and over.
      Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Not at the moment.
      In the past decade I have witnessed many thousands of redundancies in south Wales in the coal and steel industries. This afternoon we have heard a great deal about the redundancy scheme for coal miners. It is worth reminding the House that coal had to be mined where it was found, and it was often found in the most inaccessible valleys. When a pit closes, a whole community is put in jeopardy, and, as a result of those pit closures, thousands of miners will never work again. Considering the arduous and hazardous nature of that occupation, when a miner in an isolated community is made redundant, one might say that it is an ending for him. He cannot simply cope with his new life.
      In the steel industry, there were thousands of redundancies in Newport and Cardiff. When East Moors closed in Cardiff, 5,000 jobs went at a stroke. The steel industry was wiped out in the capital city of Wales. There were 6,000 redundancies at Llanwern and jobs have been cut drastically at other steelworks.
      A few years ago, a social survey of redundant steel workers revealed the dire distress felt by many of those people. They had not found work, they had probably spent their redundancy money and many of them were likely never to work again. In Committee we were told many times that our dockers have adapted to new equipment and new working practices in the industry. But when they leave the ports industry, they are unlikely to take up unemployment in finance houses or microchip enterprises which are the nature of new industries in south Wales and elsewhere. The most likely outcome is that older workers in the ports industry will tend to stagnate, and as a result could create all sorts of social problems, particularly when they have spent their redundancy money.
      We should like far more generous provisions for dock workers who will be made redundant. The problem needs to be tackled now. Only 9,400 registered dock workers remain in the ports industry. In 1983 there were 14,631, and since the inception of the scheme the number of registered dock workers has declined from more than 80,000.
      What a farce is that old parrot cry that dockers have jobs for life. The redundancy provisions that the Government have set out do not meet the dockers' real needs.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I would rather not give way. I have heard enough from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in the past two years to last me a lifetime.
      Dockers are justified in their belief that they are being badly treated. As late as 20 March this year, the Government suggested that they had no proposals to legislate in respect of the dock labour scheme. Shortly afterwards, like a bombshell, they pushed a Bill through Committee with all the finesse of an ancient steamroller.

      977
      Throughout the Committee stage Labour Members tried to persuade the Government to pause and think again about what should replace the clock labour scheme. We recognise that the scheme may be a little out of date and need amendment, but we feel that there is a need for a national framework. The Government were not prepared to see reason. I note that they appear to be doing so in respect of lawyers and I feel that they are on their way to doing so in respect of doctors.
      In those circumstances, bearing in mind the redundancy provisions that we are discussing, is it any wonder that, when the dockers eventually held a ballot, they voted by no less than three to one for industrial action?
      Even at this late stage I urge the Government to make more generous redundancy provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West pointed out, employers are doing very nicely, thank you. In any case, the Government are paying half the redundancy money. If the Government were prepared to be more generous and accept new clause I, they might well avert a very damaging strike. We know the parlous nature of Britain's balance of payments at present. We know what happened today when interest rates rose by a major stroke. It is obvious that Britain is in serious economic difficulty and if there is a dock strike it will certainly he made much worse.
      Mr. Boswell: I invite my hon. Friends to resist new clause 1. It is appropriate for me to speak in the debate precisely because I represent an inland midlands constituency which is almost as far away from the docks as it is possible to go. I hope to remind the House that it is very much in the interests of all parts of Britain and British industry that the Bill is passed substantially unamended.
      We all have an interest in an effective, efficient and low-cost docks industry. I refer to my own experience, as for many years I have lived in my constituency as a practising farmer. Many right hon. and hon. Members will not be aware that Britain has moved from a traditional grain-importing role to a major grain-exporting role. We are now the fifth largest grain-exporting power in the world. That represents an amazing change, and to some extent it has come about in spite of the existing structure of our docks industry. I have had experience of sending grain on lorries from the midlands to all the major scheme ports, and to non-scheme ports, and it is clear that what we are discussing affects us all, whether or not we represent dockland constituencies.
      There is the somewhat endearing myth, that the Labour party still likes to peddle, that no Conservative Member has any experience, direct or indirect, in any of those matters over which Labour Members claim to exercise great moral concern. I do not make a great deal of it, but it is relevant to mention that my wife's grandfather was a docker in one of the scheme ports in South Wales—[Interruption.] He worked hard in that job for 30 years and I have great respect for him. I have worked for most of my life among manual workers, although not in the docks.
      I also have knowledge through my family—and in another context, to which I shall come—of the impact of redundancy on people, and I do not belittle the effect of that impact. It is sad, dramatic and shocking when a person is declared redundant. The issue is what we do about it—how we finance it and reach the right balance —and the proposals in the Bill represent the right balance.
      978
      There are several crushing objections to the proposed new clause, one of which has been rehearsed. I refer to the situation when somebody takes the money—compensation of up to £132,000—walks out of the door, walks round the docks, comes back in through the door, takes fresh employment and starts again as if nothing has happened. As the Opposition proposal is drafted, it is totally unworkable and out of the question.
      Next, we must consider the wider question of the equity of what we are trying to do in these matters. Is it equitable that somebody should be able to receive compensation of that magnitude and then return to dock work, working alongside someone who has carried on working without receiving any compensation?
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is it not equally inequitable for the managing director of a company in the City of London to take £250,000 or £300,000 in compensation because his company has been taken over, and then for him the following day to go to work for perhaps a completely different company? If the hon. Gentleman says that that is inequitable, he must accept that a great many people in the City would be out of work tomorrow.
      Mr. Boswell: Many people in the City have lost their jobs recently, and not all of them have found other jobs. At least the hon. Gentleman accepts the important point —I fear that many of his hon. Friends have failed to accept it—that there are considerations of equity in these issues and that we must relate them to the economic situation of the industry. We must have in mind the dock worker who leaves and returns to dock work compared with the man who carries on working and does not receive compensation.
      Next, compare the case of somebody who leaves under Labour's proposals with somebody who took severance pay under the previous proposals. Is it fair that one should receive such a large additional amount, having carried on in employment for only a short time?
      There is also the wider question of equity in relation to other industries. Farming, for example, is not doing particularly well just now. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will recall what happened to milk quotas and how many farmers left the industry. Nor should we overlook the issues affecting farm workers at that time. Many of us who have been active in agriculture would be pleased to take upwards of £100,000 to get out of the industry. We must therefore look right across the board when setting levels. After all, it is easy to be generous with someone else's money—particularly public money.
      I referred to an interest that I had in redundancy issues. There is a proposal from the Plessey company affecting the town of Towcester in my constituency, which has a population of upwards of 6,000. The company has declared its intention to close some of its manufacturing facilities—without prejudice to whatever might happen in any takeover bid—and has said that 375 jobs will go. Although there may be some redeployment, it seems that there are likely to be about 300 redundancies.
      Those people—whether or not they return to work and irrespective of their situation—would look askance at the scale of the compensation payments which the hon. Member for Oldham, West has suggested. As with so

      979
      many Socialists, he is being fair to his friends but is disregarding all those whom it does not suit him to consider at the time.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West and his friends, inside and outside Parliament, in the unions and elsewhere, have connived at and supported a situation by which the dock labour scheme has continued to work to the disadvantage of the nation, to increase the costs of British industry and to threaten the position of the scheme ports. The hon. Gentleman is cast in the role of Samson. Not having brought the structure down by the direct method, he now awaits the conclusion of the scheme so that he can bring the whole lot crashing down around him. Redundancy payments on the scale he proposes would be the best way of achieving the destruction of the scheme ports which he claims to support.
      This debate, as it should be, is about redundancy, but it is possible to over-emphasise the redundancy issue—to strain it beyond equity and prudence—for we must remember that there is work to be done in the docks. That work should be done in scheme ports released from the present clamping and confining scheme—
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter rose—
      Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am about to conclude my remarks.
      They should be released from the confines of the scheme and be free to get on with their job of serving the nation's business.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am pleased to have this opportunity—
      Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that it is usual for the Chair to call to speak an hon. Member from one side of the House followed by an hon. Member from the other side. I am wondering whether you consider it fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call, following the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is a supporter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), a member of the SLD, who also supports the Bill. Should not the hon. Member for Gordon be considered to be on the Government side from the point of view of debating the proposed new clause?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the point that the hon. Member has made and, having made it, I trust that he will not push his luck.
      Mr. Bruce: I feel sure that those remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will come home to haunt him on other occasions.
      I support the Bill, although I find it extraordinary that it should have taken the Government 10 years to introduce it. Indeed, in the last few months they have still been actively defending the scheme. It is now a subject on which they have permitted their Back Benchers to let rip. The scheme must be phased out in such a way that it is quick and clean. As well as removing the restrictive practice, we must be fair to those who remain in the scheme at the end, and that is the nub of the debate on the new clause.
      The points of equity that have been raised are important, and I assure Labour Members that I appreciate
      980
      that many of them are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and have dock workers, whom they wish to protect, in their constituencies. I do not dispute their sincerity in doing that, but they must also remember that there are many working people in their constituencies who feel that the scheme has gone on for too long and that they have been disadvantaged as a result of it. In those circumstances, there is a danger that they will alienate their supporters.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me which of his constituents, apart from employers, have said that the dock labour scheme has gone on too long? Why are his constituents disadvantaged?
      Mr. Bruce: In a sense, I am grateful for that intervention. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the conflict that arose within the scheme meant that we nearly lost our fish market for good. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that would not have been a disaster for Aberdeen and its port as well as for his constituents and mine, I do not know what would be.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. He said that his constituents feel that the scheme has gone on for too long and that they are being disadvantaged by it. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond in detail on the issue of the fish market. Which of his constituents, apart from employers, have said that the scheme has gone on too long and that they are disadvantaged? None of them is covered by Aberdeen harbour board.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Bruce: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not regard employers as valid constituents. I do. Employers have told me that they think the scheme has gone on too long, and I think that those employers represent an important part of the constituency. They employ people, including some of my constituents. Their inability to expand employment in circumstances in which Aberdeen, as a scheme port, is disadvantaged adversely affects the interests of my constituents.
      I am not quarrelling with the right of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to take a different view. I respect him for his view. However, as constituency Members of Parliament, we are elected to make our own judgments as to what we believe, in the light of local knowledge and local circumstances, is in the best interests of our constituents and our community. As I have said, the phasing out of the scheme is desirable for the port of Aberdeen and for ancillary employment in and around the area.
      Obviously, I am speaking not only as a constituency Member. However, I have the greatest knowledge about the area I represent. We have seen the development of ports competing with Aberdeen. That is true in other parts of the country such as Montrose and Peterhead. I want the ports to expand. There is room for Aberdeen, Montrose and Peterhead to develop their business. I should like to see the day, soon, when they will be able to compete on a fair and equal footing.
      Having said that, and with due deference to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), the point which is relevant to the debate on the new clause is that it is important to complete this process fairly, justly and

      981
      honourably. I think that the Government have recognised the need to do that and have proposed a scheme which, at least on the face of it, seems to be reasonable. It provides for a maximum of £35,000 and an estimated total of about £25 million. Obviously, that depends on how many people are made redundant and how many are redeployed.
      An important and relevant point needs to be made and it supports the basic reasoning behind the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Both sides of the House admit that the average age of the remaining registered dockers is relatively high. It may be true that some of the dockers who are paid compensation will be re-employed the next day, but it is also true that some may never work again. The House should ensure that the scheme provides justice for those people. After all, they have stayed in a scheme that has given them continuity and security over a considerable period of time.
      The thrust of the new clause, which tots up redundancy payments according to length of service and, by implication, the age of the individual concerned, gets the balance right. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the new clause is not perfect. Indeed, it is flawed. However, the Government would do well, given that they have taken 10 years to introduce legislation to abolish the scheme, to say that the settlement of the matter should be done fairly. After all, they introduced the Bill on the same day as they introduced a White Paper, they forced the Bill into Committee and then guillotined it and they have tabled no amendments of their own. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for them to ensure that the process is carried out in a way that minimises bitterness and maximises equity to all concerned and ensures that the transition is achieved without an extremely damaging dock strike.
      I believe—I hope that I am right—that whatever utterances are made in the House, nobody wants a dock strike and nobody believes that such a strike would be desirable for the British economy or good for the ports or the workers. It would be helpful if the Government would say that, in the light of that, given that this is a final settlement and that they have taken so long to bring it about, they would tilt the balance of the scheme to ensure that those who have worked in the industry for a long time and have little prospect of being re-employed have a more generous settlement than is proposed now. However, as I have said, the general thrust of the Government's proposals are not unreasonable.
      In those circumstances, the Government could have responded with a little more grace to the principle behind the new clause. It would help to ensure that the Bill leaves the House with my support—I do not qualify that—and with the feeling that the Government have shown some sensitivity and have tried to ensure that confrontation is removed. It would also help to achieve fairness and justice while removing a debilitating and restrictive practice that has existed for too long in circumstances that compensate those affected and liberate the scheme ports to compete fairly with other ports in the country.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Gordon, (Mr. Bruce) suffers from the fact that he was not a member of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was a member of the Committee but he rarely paid a visit to it so he was not able to report what was going on. The hon. Member for Gordon may be interested to know that in Committee, the
      982
      Labour party moved an amendment to increase the compensation to about £70,000. In the short time of two or three weeks since then, the Opposition have upped the ante by another £60,000. At the rate we are going, if the Bill is not on the statute book quickly, the Labour party will be prepared to offer £1 million by the end of the summer. The hon. Member for Gordon should remember that the Government are making an offer to dock workers which is considerably in excess of what has been offered to them in the past. I shall come back to the figures of the severance opportunities available under the Labour Government.
      It is important to place on record the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has admitted, during interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, that the new clause does not make sense and does not bear out the Opposition's intention. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has been in the House since 1970 and it is no good for him to claim that he does not have the resources or that he did not understand. He has admitted that the drafting is defective, but is still going ahead with it and intending to vote for it. He cannot then complain when my right hon. Friend the Minister points out that the new clause is defective. It would ensure that everybody made redundant or who chooses to leave the dock labour scheme for any reason would be entitled to up to £130,000 in a pay-off. Clearly, that is nonsense. People leave their jobs every day of the week and they are not able to collect £130,000 from the taxpayer or their employer. That is the purpose of the new clause, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Oldham, West, having discovered and admitted that it is stupid and that he has made a mistake, being willing to press on with the debate and to press the new clause to a Division.
      If law making is about anything, it must be about making sensible laws. The Opposition have been caught out and have been slipshod in their drafting, but it surprises me that they insist on continuing.
      It is important to look at the issue of jobs for life. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to that before leaving the Chamber. The simple fact is that the scheme did provide a job for life. It is no use pointing to the fact that the number of dockers in the scheme has diminished. It has diminished only as a result of voluntary redundancy. No docker who wishes to remain in the scheme has been forced to leave. That has been the problem. Those who like a cushy life and enjoy bobbing off to be a taxi driver or those who enjoy ghosting or want to sit in a portakabin at Grangemouth watching a colour television set to overcome the boredom that might result, have stayed within the scheme. That is why the average age of dockers in the scheme has increased over the years and that is why the scheme is described as giving jobs for life. Unless dockers choose to leave the scheme, they are in the scheme and on the gravy train for as long as they want.
      Now Labour Members suggest that the amount of money that dockers receive should be increased considerably over the amount proposed by the Government. What is interesting is that when Labour Members had the power to determine those matters, they were not that generous. In 1975, the maximum severance payment was £5,250. Since January 1987, it has been £25,000, which is an increase of 376 per cent. in 12 years, mainly under a Conservative Government. In special circumstances, it may be necessary for employers to pay up

      983
      to £35,000. Already under this Government, severance payments have been increased considerably and the Bill proposes to raise the limit to £35,000. When the Opposition had it in their power to decide the limit, they put it at £5,250, so how can they consider that the Government are being ungenerous in putting the figure up to £35,000?
      It is interesting that the hon. Member for Gordon, in the usual Liberal tradition, split the difference and said we should give a bit more money. When the Lib-Lab pact was in existence for two years, there was no increase. The then Government kept the maximum severance payment at the same level. That contrasts with the Government's proposals in the Bill.
      It ill behoves dockers in the scheme to complain about receiving £35,000 and to say that it is not a good pay-off when one considers the productivity and industrial relations record of the dock labour scheme. Since 1967, more than 4 million working days have been lost because of disputes in scheme ports. Since 1967, there have been 3,569 disputes in scheme ports. The number of days lost per year by dockers in scheme ports in 1988 was 10,663, which is 1,105 days lost per 1,000 employees, compared with 164 for all industries and services. The strike record for registered dock workers is more than five times as bad as that for the rest of industry. Yet the Opposition are saying that, after the dockers have had a lifetime of bobbing off and ghosting, after an appalling strike and industrial relations record and after a time when the Labour Government themselves were prepared to pay only £5,000, compared with this Government's offer of £35,000, we should up the ante, first to £70,000 and, three weeks later, to a suggested £130,000.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I apologise for coming in late and hearing only the end of my hon. Friend's speech. The record is not bad everywhere. In Southampton, it has improved greatly over the past few years since the leaders of the dockers in Southampton took advantage of the very generous severance payments to which my hon. Friend referred, and ceased to be dockers in Southampton. They were therefore not eligible for re-employment as dockers anywhere else, so they took jobs on Merseyside, where they are now employed as industrial relations advisers. I can imagine nothing more guaranteed to ensure that Southampton has the edge over Liverpool when it comes to getting business henceforth.
      Mr. Bennett: Everywhere in the country has the edge over Liverpool when it comes to strike records and industrial relations. It is interesting—
      Mr. Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bennett: No. As a former dock worker, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows about the strike record in Liverpool better than anyone else does. He has been an agitator in Liverpool docks and the reason that Liverpool is such an appalling—
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not unparliamentary for one hon. Member in his conceited ignorance to call another hon. Member an agitator, as has just happened?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything unparliamentary.
      Mr. Bennett: I am surprised that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) believes that the term "agitator" is an insult in the Labour party. I always thought that it was an accolade there and guaranteed the reselection of Labour Members. We all know about the industrial relations record of Liverpool and the reason why Speke has gone down the plughole. We know about the appalling strike record in the car industry and the docks. I do not want lectures from the hon. Member for Garston about that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoke about Southampton. In the past two or three weeks, negotiations have been taking place in Southampton while the ballot has been carried out. Mr. Harryman, the Transport and General Workers Union shop steward there, has been censured by his union for trying to come to a local agreement about what happens at Southampton after the scheme comes to an end. It is sensible for a trade union official to recognise that the scheme is coming to an end, by the will of Parliament, and to get round the table to talk with the employers about how the port's future can be assured.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Ernie Ross: I was a member of the Committee on the Bill. We have, no doubt, four or five hours ahead of us when we shall hear contributions from Conservative Members which will reflect their comments in Committee. The ministerial team has changed yet again because it was so weak, disjointed and hopeless that it has been necessary to draft in Ministers on an almost daily basis. They are incompetent and cannot handle their brief. The Chairman of the Committee had to lecture the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) because he was not doing his job.
      We should therefore not be surprised about what we have seen in this debate. This debate is a continuation of the double act that the Tories have been running throughout the Bill. The straight man leads off, then the clowns come on behind. The clown who has just spoken, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was a member of the Committee. He has been joined here by other clowns who have been on other Bills, while he clowned around on this Bill.
      Another clown is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who stands up and says, "I am a friend of the dockers and I am fighting for the dock industry." Last night, this clown was so concerned about the dockers that he moved the Third Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill formally and did not say another word. That is the extent of his concern about the docks and what has happened to them. It is just one more example of how the Conservatives have attempted to steamroller legislation on to the statute book.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a point that needs to be dealt with immediately. He said that, under new clause 1, dockers could take a bonus and then immediately take a post somewhere else. That is also true under the Government's proposals. Under the Bill, there is nothing to stop a registered docker taking redundancy and then taking employment as a docker down the road or even with his previous employer. Let me put that on the record. The only difference between our proposal and the

      985
      Government's is that, because we have a little bit more experience of work than the clowns have, we understand some of the problems.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment should ensure that people are trained properly and that they have jobs to look forward to, rather than the dole queue. I am disappointed that he did not deal with some of the points I raised. He knows that the Select Committee on Employment has identified the over-50s as a special category, yet neither he, the Secretary of State for Employment nor the Minister of State dealt with those comments in Committee. I went through the Select Committee's comments in Committee and they are relevant to this debate. The Select Committee referred to life expectancy, the fact that an increasingly large part of the population is made up of the elderly and the nature of work. It also pointed out that there are people who discriminate against the elderly.
      It is worth remembering who is discriminating against who, because the fat cats sitting on the Government Front Bench all earn more in a single year than they are proposing to pay to the dockers whom they will make redundant and send to the labour exchanges—
      Mr. Michael Brown rose—
      Mr. Ross: Sit down.
      Each of those Ministers earns more in a single year than they are proposing to give to redundant dockers, but there is no way in which we shall allow them to get away with that without at least attempting to increase the sum—
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Ross: I should like to give way to my hon. Friend but there is not much time and we have a guillotine. I hope that we can have one more comment from the Minister in answer to some of the points that were not answered in Committee, because I should like to hear some answers tonight.
      We are expecting the Government to say a little more. Once they have given the generous handout of £35,000, what will happen to the dockers? Does it mean that they will be on the dole for the rest of their lives, because if it does, I advise the Government that £35,000 does not go very far and that we shall not let them get away with it. We want more information.
      The hon. Member for Daventry also said that there was unfairness. He is right—there is an unfairness. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he would have identified the unfairness that exists right now. That lot on the Conservative Benches have been conspiring with dock employers to ensure that people such as the Aberdeen fish lumpers are leaving employment now under much worse conditions than those that will apply when the Bill receives Royal Assent. There is a conspiracy among Conservative Members and a lack of concern about those people who were convinced that they should take redundancy. Because of the difference made by one day, two people who work together in Aberdeen and who have applied for redundancy will get different terms. Any worker who did not know about the Government's plans and who applied for redundancy under the old terms will not be allowed to withdraw his application so that he can take advantage of the new scheme.
      986
      The peroration of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was about the only peroration that we have heard from his party because his hon. Friends were absolutely silent throughout the Committee stage. He reminded me, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, of a fish person gutting a cod because of the way in which he said, "Let's be quick and clean and get rid of it." We are talking about human beings. We do not want to hear about a quick, clean end to the scheme, because we know that there will be problems long after its abolition. The hon. Member for Gordon got his just and appropriate reward in the treatment given to him by the hon. Member for Pembroke, who was the resident clown on the Committee.
      If there was one thing that differentiated the Opposition and the Government sides of the Committee, it was that at least we tried. It may very well be that the wording of this new clause is not correct, but if it is not, would it not have made much more sense for the Minister to say, "I accept the intention of the new clause and if it is withdrawn, I will introduce an amendment or a new clause in another place to improve on the redundancy terms that are on offer at present so that some of the problems that the Opposition have identified can be dealt with"?
      Unless we hear tonight that the Government will do something to ensure that the so-called generous payment that the Government are giving to the 46·7-year-old dockers who will leave the industry and who may never work again is supplemented by some training programme or some other provision to ensure that the redundancy payment is not all that they will receive from this Government or from any other Government for the rest of their lives, we shall pursue the new clause to a vote. It is clear that the Government do not care. We have a responsibility to speak for the dockers who will be made redundant.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) clearly identified, because of the intentions of those people who are at present constrained by the dock labour scheme, 2,000 dockers are now facing the sack. As soon as the Bill is given the Royal Assent, those 2,000 people will be left to the labour exchanges. We shall fight for as long and as hard as we possibly can, both here and in the other place, to ensure that those people get the maximum reward for the effort that they have put in to make our docks so successful.
      The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was the most appalling insult to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I have heard that on the Committee the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was one of the more entertaining Labour Members. To say that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is funnier or more peculiar than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is an insult. I hope that those Labour Members will sort themselves out, because that sort of disagreement brings the Labour party into disrepute.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, West also referred to the fact that 650 registered dockers per year over the next three years might take severance and be made redundant. Since 1983—over the past five or six years, which is the sort of period that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would use—840 registered dockers per yea- have been taking severance. Therefore, our proposals will mean

      987
      a reduction in the numbers leaving the industry—or rather, leaving the registered docks work side of the industry.
      Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
      Mr. Bottomley: When I was a Minister at the Department of Employment, I remember the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) personally trying to resolve some of the disputes that were then threatening the future of Aberdeen. I pay tribute to him for that before giving way to him.
      Mr. Hughes: After that, I am sorry to have to ask this question, but I must still put it to the Minister. What is the position of the fish market porters in Aberdeen who have no employer at the moment because, as was pointed out in Committee, the fish landing company went out of existence on 24 April? Are those people who are still working on a temporary licence with Aberdeen harbour board entitled to £35,000, or are they being pegged back to £25,000?
      Mr. Bottomley: As I have been away from this subject for some time, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to his question, although I do not think that it will affect his vote on the new clause. I shall see whether an answer can be given to him during our subsequent debates this evening, because he has raised a serious point that deserves an answer.
      We are considering a ghost new clause and I suspect that, by the time we come to vote on it, no one will actually vote for it, with the possible exceptions of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and his hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Dundee, West. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who moved the new clause, acknowledged that it does not do what he had hoped it would do—
      Mr. Meacher: I did not say that.
      Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Oldham, West also acknowledged that by tabling amendment No. 3, which would get rid of existing clause 5, many of the protections that British dock workers would want to have would be swept away. I ask Opposition Members to consider what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who dealt both with the serious points and with the new clause that was tabled semi-seriously by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
      The proposal in the new clause is that a registered dock worker with 20 years' service, who leaves the industry for any reason whatsoever, should receive £66,000. We are dealing with a suggestion that a registered dock worker who leaves the industry for any reason after 30 years' service should get £96,000 and a registered dock worker with 40 years' service should get £126,000. That is the consequence of the simple arithmetic of the new clause.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pointed out, when one considers the £5,000 that was available when the Labour party was last in government and the £25,000 and the other figures on offer now, one must realise that there has been a significant increase.
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Bottomley: It would probably be better if I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I acknowledge that he has been present for most of the debate. I am not sure that there is time for me to give way to him, but if I run out of things to say before six o'clock—in two minutes' time—perhaps I shall give way to him.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Pembroke have treated the debate seriously. We want to see thriving ports that will compete equally. The proposals in clause 5 are that the ports should not compete equally for three years between the time of Royal Assent and the date on which the transitional arrangements come to an end, because the scheme ports will still have taxpayer contributions towards redundancies. That is the kind of competitive advantage that will die away at the end of the three years. It is right that there should be transitional arrangements in moving from the dock labour scheme to the post-dock labour scheme position. That is the argument for looking at the distortion that we now face.
      Some hon. Members asked whether those in the docks industry would be treated worse than those in the mining industry. Let me give some examples. A mineworker aged 27 with 11 years' service will receive a payment of £6,648. A docker in those circumstances—although, of course, there are probably no dockers that young with that length of service—would receive a payment of £27,000 if made redundant in the first 18 months after Royal Assent, or £16,000 if made redundant in the second 18-month period. Further, a miner aged 32 with 16 years' service will receive £17,468; a similar docker with similar service would receive the maximum payments of £35,000 or £20,000. It is important that we remember that the comparisons suggest that the transitional redundancy arrangements following Royal Assent are reasonably fair.
      I recognise the point that was made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who made a reasonably constructed speech although he did not make the case for the severely increased sums which are the aim of the new clause so inadequately expressed by the Labour party. At least there is agreement throughout the House, between the Labour party, the Social and Liberal Democratic party and the Conservative party, about the way in which the new clause was drafted. Its arithmetic goes far, too far, and when taken with amendment No. 3, its consequences are totally wrong. The House knows that the new clause is unacceptable. On some points, it acts to the disadvantage of former registered dock workers. No other worker is entitled to such generous terms. The clause has no logic, merit or friends. I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Bermingham: The Minister would not answer a simple question. If one is 55, has 10 years working life left and is getting a maximum of £35,000—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [8 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184 Noes 258.

      Division No. 212]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Allen, Graham

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Anderson, Donald

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      989

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Howells, Geraint

      Barron, Kevin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Battle, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

      Illsley, Eric

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ingram, Adam

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Janner, Greville

      Blair, Tony

      Jones, Barry (Alyn &Deeside)

      Blunkett, David

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Boyes, Roland

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Bradley, Keith

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lamond, James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Buckley, George J.

      Leighton, Ron

      Caborn, Richard

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Litherland, Robert

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cartwright, John

      McAllion, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McCartney, Ian

      Clay, Bob

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clelland, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cohen, Harry

      McLeish, Henry

      Coleman, Donald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      McWilliam, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Cousins, Jim

      Marek, Dr John

      Cummings, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Meacher, Michael

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dixon, Don

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &Bute)

      Dobson, Frank

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Doran, Frank

      Morley, Elliott

      Douglas, Dick

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mullin, Chris

      Eadie, Alexander

      Murphy, Paul

      Eastham, Ken

      Nellist, Dave

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      O'Brien, William

      Fatchett, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

      Parry, Robert

      Fisher, Mark

      Pike, Peter L.

      Flynn, Paul

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Prescott, John

      Foster, Derek

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Fraser, John

      Radice, Giles

      Galloway, George

      Randall, Stuart

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Redmond, Martin

      George, Bruce

      Richardson, Jo

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Robertson, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rogers, Allan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Rooker, Jeff

      Gould, Bryan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hardy, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Henderson, Doug

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld &Kilsyth)

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

      Home Robertson, John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      990

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Brian

      Stott, Roger

      Winnick, David

      Strang, Gavin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Straw, Jack

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Vaz, Keith

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Walley, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mr. Frank Haynes, and

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dicks, Terry

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Allason, Rupert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amess, David

      Dover, Den

      Amos, Alan

      Durant, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Ashby, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forman, Nigel

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forth, Eric

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Benyon, W.

      Franks, Cecil

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Freeman, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fry, Peter

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gardiner, George

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gow, Ian

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gregory, Conal

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bright, Graham

      Grist, Ian

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

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hannam, John

      Budgen, Nicholas

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

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Butler, Chris

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butterfill, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heddle, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chope, Christopher

      Hill, James

      Churchill, Mr

      Hind, Kenneth

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

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, John (Ravensboune)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunter, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Cran, James

      Jack, Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Janman, Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Day, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      991

      Key, Robert

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Kilfedder, James

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lang, Ian

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lilley, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Maclean, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mans, Keith

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marlow, Tony

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mates, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Squire, Robin

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mills, Iain

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stern, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moate, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Sumberg, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Summerson, Hugo

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thorne, Neil

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Paice, James

      Waller, Gary

      Patnick, Irvine

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Ward, John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pawsey, James

      Watts, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wheeler, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Price, Sir David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Redwood, John

      Wilshire, David

      Renton, Tim

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Riddick, Graham

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wood, Timothy

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Yeo, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Rost, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

      Ryder, Richard

      and Mr. John Taylor.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 2

      DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL DOCK LABOUR BOARD
      Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
      `but no such order shall be made until a body has been established which will make provision for the training and welfare of dock workers (formerly within the Scheme) and port medical facilities'.
      992
      The amendment seeks to establish a body which will take over the training and medical functions of the National Dock Labour Board when it is abolished under the Bill.
      The Government have repeatedly refused to elaborate on the arrangements that will follow the abolition of the board. Indeed, it is the issue of what will follow the abolition of the board and the dock labour scheme that is at the heart of the dispute between the National Association of Port Employers and the Transport and General Workers Union. The union is concerned about the threat of casualisation and wishes to secure a collective agreement that covers job security. The union has also expressed its wish to secure arrangements—again involving the union—which would cover the training and the medical facilities provided by the board. Those were among the issues raised by the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union at the union's meeting with the port employers on 18 April.
      It is as well to understand that, under the agreement, we are not seeking to perpetuate the dock labour scheme. It is not a device to replace the scheme with a new scheme, because the kernel of the dock labour scheme is the monopoly employment aspect, which is the element of the scheme that requires that only registered employers can be responsible for dock work at our ports and that only registered dockers can carry out the work. That monopoly will go with the Bill and the amendment will not reinstate it. That is not to say that we do not share the union's concerns about the threat of casualisation—we certainly do. It must be said that the employers' record post-Devlin, when they gave certain undertakings in relation to casual work that were not sustained, fully justifies the suspicions of the union and of the individual registered dockers.
      6.15 pm
      In the amendment we are dealing with the provision of a body to provide for training after the abolition of the board and to maintain the medical centres which are already operated by the National Dock Labour Board. It is as well to acknowledge the value of the existing training arrangements. There are two training bases, one at Liverpool and one at Tilbury, each with a chief instructor and, I believe, about six training instructors. Those instructors must be mobile, because they cover a substantial area of the country. We have always argued that the quality of training provided by the NDLB is high and that that is a resource which should not be dissipated and lost.
      We were not at all reassured by the Government's statements in Committee. The Under-Secretary, at about 11 o'clock at night, when dealing with the existing facilities, said:
      "We must be clear about what training is available in the scheme ports. In 1987, there were 21 instructors and some £500,000 a year was spent on training; this year there are 14 mobile instructors, working within the scheme ports, and there are no longer training centres. How much training does that amount to? In 1987, a total of 1,498 training weeks were given, and that provided—on average—less than half a week per trainee."
      Of course, those training centres have long since ceased to exist.
      The Under-Secretary at a later stage said:
      "Employers will need to ensure that their employees are properly trained. If they are not, the work will not get done."
      The Under-Secretary further said:

      993
      "Employers will be unable to run their businesses as successfully by operating with untrained people.
      Therefore, I do not apologise for saying that after the scheme is repealed, it will be the employers' responsibility to ensure that proper training takes place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 213.]
      That is the guts of the issue. The Government have repeatedly refused to give any indication of what arrangements will exist, if any, at national level following the abolition of the dock labour hoard. We believe that it would be very much against the interests of the industry if this national facility was dissipated, split up between the employers, or simply wiped out, no doubt through redundancy.
      We ask the Minister to tell us precisely where the Government stand on the issue. Is it really their intention to destroy that national training facility? I am not suggesting that the body we are seeking to establish would have responsibility only for training in the scheme ports. Of course, the logic of the Bill is that the distinction between the scheme and non-scheme ports for all practical purposes will no longer exist. I should have thought that there would be a case for building on that national training facility and making it available to all the ports.
      Some of the non-scheme ports, particularly the smaller ones, already make use of the NDLB training facilities. I admit that that accounts for only a very small proportion of the training provided by the NDLB. Nevertheless, it is significant that some of the non-scheme ports consider it to be an advantage to use the training facilities provided by the NDLB.
      The amendment is a most constructive proposal. Instead of destroying a training facility and the experience of the training organisation—and that is what is really important—the Government should be prepared to accept the principle of a new national facility and organisation to take over the responsibility for training in scheme and also non-scheme ports.
      Even this Government have accepted the principle that they have a role to play in training. It is common ground between the Labour party and the Government that this country's record on training falls a long way short of that of many of our competitors—and certainly short of that of many countries in the European Community. It should be a matter of concern for the Government, the Opposition, employers, trade unions and local authorities to try to improve the quality of training for the unemployed and, in this context, to improve the training for employed people to whom the vast bulk of the training to which I am referring is directed.
      In the context of the Government's training policies as outlined in their document "Employment for the 1990s", the establishment of the Training Agency and arrangements for the training and enterprise councils, the Government should accept the principle that the public sector should play a part in trying to ensure that training takes place. The state should act as an enabler, or catalyst, in that respect.
      It is indisputable that a national training scheme would benefit efficiency and health and safety in industry. We have had a great deal of discussion already in Committee about health and safety. We are all well aware that separate regulations apply to health and safety which cover scheme and non-scheme ports.
      Undoubtedly docks are dangerous places. An important part of training is to ensure that dockers can
      994
      operate the sophisticated and expensive equipment in the docks in a way which is safe for them and for their workmates.
      It cannot be right to wipe out this training facility, which is such an asset to the industry. The same applies, although perhaps with less force, to the medical centres. I accept that there is scope for some rationalisation and for different provision. In some instances the medical facilities are some way from the ports and some of the centres have not been utilised of late to the extent that they were used in the past. However, the principle is still valid. The medical facilities should not be wiped out or handed over to the employers. They should be maintained and operated in a way that will benefit dockers and the industry generally.
      It is remarkable that not even the staff in the training and medical facilities have any idea what is in store for them. Will the training facilities be wiped out? Will the staff be made compulsorily redundant? Is that the Government's intention? We have just had a debate about the compensation arrangements which might prevail for registered dockers. What about the compensation arrangements for training staff and all the other people involved with the national dock labour scheme?
      The Government have said that we should not simply be concerned about compensation arrangements for registered dockers, but that we should also be concerned about compensation for other staff involved in the scheme. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will tell us precisely what arrangements will apply for people involved in the training function of the NDLB. Many of those people have substantial commitments. We might argue that, because they must be mobile—some have moved from one part of the country to another and taken on large mortgages to act as training instructors—therefore they are as much in need of substantial compensation if they are to lose their jobs as any other group of workers.
      We are not advocating redundancies. The talents of those people should be deployed within the framework of a new organisation for the benefit of the port industry. There is no disagreement between the Opposition and the Government with regard to efficiency, productivity and using new investment most effectively. Training is an essential element of all that. Against a background of the Government's intransigence since the publication of the White Paper, it would be sensible and an excellent development if the Government gave some sign that they were prepared to make some provision to follow the national dock labour scheme and maintain the training functions, medical and welfare facilities provided by the NDLB.
      We have in mind a body which would involve the trade unions. We favour joint determination along the lines which exist in the NDLB, where the employers and the union are equally represented. We believe that the best can be obtained from training and from all the other functions if there is maximum representation from the work force working fully with employer representatives. That is the great strength of the present NDLB facilities. They have the support of the employers and the trade union, because the trade union is directly involved in the organisation which is ultimately responsible for the training facility, the NDLB.
      We strongly advocate that there should be a national body to take over the training and medical functions and

      995
      that that national body, whatever its details, should include equal participation of the employers and the union. It is in the interests of the docks that training should involve the maximum participation of the trade union.
      There can be no dispute about the importance which trade unions attach to training. Most trade unions have separate training departments and are involved in providing training facilities to help their members obtain employment or, in other cases, to retrain and become more employable. The main responsibility lies with industry and with the Government. The trade unions have an excellent record on training and we want that to be encouraged. We should maintain the arrangements whereby there is co-determination and joint control of the training arrangements and medical facilities.
      When we read about these issues in the British press, we might almost believe that the national dock labour scheme was unique to Britain and that it was an eccentric development. That is not the case. Many other advanced countries have found it necessary to have a scheme similar to the national dock labour scheme. France, Italy and Spain have schemes. They are not necessarily identical to our schemes, but it is amazing how many of those schemes include the principle of the register. They control employment in the docks with the aim of preventing casual labour and all that goes with it, including insecurity and exploitation.
      We are not advocating something impractical or unreasonable, but simply seeking to make the best of the position that will exist post the enactment of the scheme. We, and the trade union, accept that the legislation will be enacted, and the debate is about the arrangements that will follow the national dock labour scheme. There must be national arrangements as well as local ones.
      This evening, we want an end to stalling about what is to replace the national dock labour scheme. We want an end to the nonsense that is talked about everything being broken up and the issues being decided by individual ports. There is no way that some of the smaller ports, either within or without the scheme, will be able to run proper training schemes.
      6.30 pm
      The Government have an obligation to ensure that there is a national training scheme, which will be used not only by the major ports and employers, as at present, but will be available to the smaller ports and employers, which have no chance of operating their own training schemes. It would be unreasonable to leave their training facilities to the whim of the larger employers, with whom they are in competition.
      Even under the terms of the Government's own approach to this matter and to maintaining and encouraging competition in the industry, there is an overwhelming need for a national training facility. The amendment is aimed to achieve that and I hope that the Government will see fit to accept the argument in principle.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): In the next few minutes I shall attempt to answer the substantial points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr.
      996
      Strang). With the leave of the House, I shall attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in the debate to sum up and address hon. Members' contributions.
      The purpose of the Bill is to bring employment arrangements in scheme ports within the general legal framework which has evolved under successive Governments since the scheme's inception. Those developments include the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which placed specific obligations on employers to make adequate provision for health, safety and welfare. The Act also provided for proper participation by trade unions, at national and local level, in ensuring adequate arrangements.
      There are now also a range of training structures which industries may choose to participate in according to their own assessment of needs. Within that framework. It is clearly for employers and employees in the industry to decide what suits them best, as is the case in any other industry.
      By contrast, the amendment would impose on former scheme ports a special national structure covering welfare, training and medical facilities. No case has been made for that structure, which does not exist in any other industry, either in Committee or today. The proposition which should be made is that what has to be done is special, not only to this industry, but to ports which were formerly within the scheme.
      Mr. Strang: I made it clear that we believe that it would make sense for that national body to provide a training facility for all ports. However, the nature of the Bill is such that we can table an amendment that covers only ports within the scheme. If any such body were established, it should be extended to have responsibility for training throughout the industry as a whole.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that matter. He worked on the supposition, which I do not accept, that it is only within some sort of overall national framework that the considerations with which he is concerned could be properly addressed.
      That type of structure is unnecessary and will inhibit port employers' acceptance of full responsibility for their own training, health and welfare provision. It would also extend, quite unnecessarily, the transitional period, during which the board is under a duty to wind up its affairs, and the cost of an extension would obviously have to be borne by the taxpayer.
      I do not understand the reluctance of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to accept the normal health, safety and welfare provisions that already apply to non scheme-ports, and their belief that they are inapplicable to scheme ports. The structures that already apply in non-scheme ports are particularly comprehensive. The abolition of the scheme will not change the basis of health and safety provision which applies to all ports.
      The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places an obligation to make proper health, safety and welfare provision on individual employers generally, and not on the board—certainly not on any other body established to take its place.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: If what the Minister says about the provision of such regulations in non-scheme ports is true, will he assist me on the re-emergence of casual dock work in my constituency of Port Glasgow? Will he instuct his officials to inspect

      997
      casual dock work in the port of Port Glasgow to protect my casually employed constituents vis-a-vis their rights and regulations? Will he intervene in that way?
      Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about casualism. A fear of casualism has run throughout this debate. It featured strongly in Committee. From what I have seen, I have no doubt that that almost inherited fear of the evils of casualism, as it existed at the turn of the century and thereafter, which runs through—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: It still exists.
      Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, and if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) wants to make an intervention other than from the sedentary position, I shall oblige him.
      It is clear that the fear of casualism gravely concerns many dockers who protest against the abolition of this scheme.
      Often, Minister have to make forecasts about what will happen in the future if their views are correct. This case is different: we do not have to make some great leap into the dark because we do not know what will happen about casualism when the scheme is abolished because a port structure outside the scheme already exists in this country. The casualism rate there is no more than 6 per cent. Hon. Members may say that, even at 6 per cent., that is a bad business.
      I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—if I am incorrect I shall give way at once—that I know of no industrial action organised by the Transport and General Workers Union in non-scheme ports to protest at the casualism rate. Today's modern port industry has extremely valuable, expensive and sophisticated equipment that could not possibly be run on a casual basis, and well over 90 per cent. of employers who operate in scheme ports have made it clear that there will be no return to casual systems of work. Those factors mean that, for once, a Minister does not have to look into his crystal ball but can talk about what is actually happening in non-scheme ports. That should be a substantial reassurance, although I suspect that he will not think it is, to the hon. Gentleman.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I asked for his assistance in a matter concerning casual dock work, which began again in Port Glasgow before Christmas. Young unemployed men are being paid £2·50 per hour to work as casual dockers. I do not ask much from this Government, especially for my country of Scotland, and all I ask of the Minister and his colleagues is to request his officials to inspect the practice to assure me that my constituents, who have taken up the work because they are unemployed, are protected by the regulations of which he spoke about five minutes ago.
      Mr. Nicholls: It may be that my memory is defective. The hon. Gentleman refers to practices that started before Christmas, and it is now summer. I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman writing to me about it. If he is telling me that scheme ports are now faced with the use of non-registered dockers, which, as the law presently stands, would be in breach of the criminal law, obviously such matters must be looked at.
      998
      However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman is making a different point: that events in his constituency show that casualism is about to take off. I accept that his is a genuine fear, but there is no evidence to support it. If it were realistic, it would be remarkable, to put it at its lowest, that the Transport and General Workers Union has not been protesting.
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is taking up his own time and that of his hon. Friends. I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but IL see that he is now shaking his head. It would probably be provocative of me to say that I had satisfied an Opposition Member, and I suspect that it would also be thoroughly untrue.
      The Dock Regulations 1988, made under the 1974 Act, provide comprehensive, up-to-date and detailed provision specifically for dock work. Such detailed provision is unusual for a specific industry. It was proposed by the Health and Safety Commission, which, as I am sure the House does not need to be reminded, is a tripartite body including trade union representatives. The regulations cover welfare provision—for example, sanitary facilities and protective clothing—which the board currently supervises under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966. In some respects, notably in connection with protective clothing, they are more comprehensive than the earlier provisions.
      The board's medical provision, which predates that of the National Health Service, makes special arrangements for registered dock workers which to a large extent now duplicate existing services. The present provision consists of 20 small medical centres serving 18 ports. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has reminded us, they provide treatment both related and unrelated to the needs of the workplace. Since 1982, all employers have been under an obligation to make adequate provision for first aid, consistent with the risks and needs of the industry in which they operate and in accordance with first aid regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
      Mr. Loyden: As the Minister will know—the point was raised a number times in Committee—the docks industry has particular problems connected with both safety and the provision of medical services: for instance, the distance from the dock of the nearest hospital. Past provision has taken into account the peculiar nature of the industry, and its virtual isolation from life in the city. Requirements have been established in response to real needs. I hope that the Minister is not forgetting that.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am not forgetting it at all, but, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's evident concern, he makes the mistake of thinking that such problems are unique. He ignores the fact that non-scheme ports often operate with the same coastal facilities as scheme ports. They have grown up because of the need for unrestricted ports. The hon. Gentleman assumes that there is no pattern from which we can learn, and that it might be in the interests of employers not to make appropriate arrangements with the work force when the scheme is finally abolished. Employers in non-scheme ports have

      999
      had to make arrangements appropriate to individual ports and work forces, and there is no reason to believe that the same will not happen in former scheme ports.
      Clause 2 gives the board the opportunity to dispose of its assets, including its medical centres, in such a way as to encourage continued provision to meet the future needs of the industry and its legal requirements. It provides for local needs to be matched with local medical provision for all dock workers.
      It must not be assumed that the establishment of a single body is the best way in which to meet the industry's training needs. It is not up to me to pass judgment on what arrangements are appropriate for each port, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East seemed to think that a national structure would be the only option, and I do not think that that case has been made.
      Training must respond to the needs of individual firms, and it is up to employers to make arrangements for it, whether they do so individually or collectively. The work being done in a modern, capital-intensive port requires a highly skilled work force, and employers therefore have every incentive to make proper training arrangements.
      6.45 pm
      The abolition of the scheme's restrictions on the deployment of dock workers means that investment in training will produce an even greater return. Non-scheme ports manage to train to meet their skill needs without the imposition of a national body. In 1988, Felixstowe, which has its own training school, spent about £775,000 on training—rather more than the National Dock Labour Board spent on behalf of all the scheme ports put together. Many other non-scheme ports, notably those run by Sealink, have full-time training officers. The board's training activities now amount to a mobile force of about 20 training instructors, without any training centres.
      The provision in clause 2 for the disposal of the board's assets provides every opportunity for the industry to take over such useful provision as exists. There is no reason to believe, judging by the performance of non-scheme ports, that former scheme ports will not take training extremely seriously.
      The amendment gives no suggestion of where the funding of a replacement body would come from. Is it to come from a levy on the industry, once again placing a burden on employers, who would then have no control over the necessary allocation of resources? Or are financial arrangements of the transitional period to continue so that the new body is funded by sums voted by Parliament and paid by the taxpayer? Whatever the answer, the proposal is clearly unnecessary and unreasonable.
      Mr. Tony Banks: A point that the Minister seems to miss is that discipline is provided by the existence of the scheme ports. What worries us is that, with the removal of the national training scheme provided by the scheme ports, that discipline will go. The Minister does not appreciate the significance of training in the docks or in any other industry. He describes training costs as a burden on the employer, but they are not a burden; they are part of the investment that any respectable and self-seeking employer should be making. We want to ensure that the best employers follow the best practices.
      Mr. Nicholls: It is thoroughly in keeping with the demonology of the Labour party to assume, as the hon. Gentleman has in his usual sincere and witty manner, that the only way in which employers can be obliged to train is through the use of a bit of discipline—a word that trips off the hon. Gentleman's tongue. In less formal surroundings, he would probably say that what employers need is a touch of the lash. That is what I think he has in mind.
      It is curious that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept for a moment that naked self-interest, if nothing else, would make employers train. The hon. Gentleman obviously prefers the idea of a touch of the lash in connection with naked self-interest. The idea that employers would be prepared to commit millions of pounds' worth of equipment to a casual worker—if I may refer to a point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—or to commit it to someone with no proper training is absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman need not take it from me; he can look at the record. I had to remind the House a few moments ago that more training is provided by one non-scheme port—Felixstowe—than by all the non-scheme ports. That is the best assurance that the hon. Gentleman could have that, in a modern port industry, employers desperately need trained staff.
      The Bill provides for the board to wind itself up in a way that will give port employers and authorities every incentive to take over useful training and welfare facilities. The statutory requirements for health, safety and welfare which apply to all ports are comprehensive, but if there is a need for development it should be within the framework of general health and safety provisions. After abolition, scheme ports will have every incentive to make proper provision for their skill needs. There is no reason to assume that a national body would help the industry meet its training needs more effectively.
      I refer finally to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about possible redundancies of board staff who are not registered dock workers and who cannot look forward to the generous compensation scheme outlined in the previous debate. It would be wholly inappropriate for either the hon. Gentleman or myself to speculate on the level of redundancies, if any. However, I take his point that, logically, there could be redundancies. I understand that the board is considering proposals to enhance the voluntary severance payments that otherwise will be made on a contractual basis. Discussions on that aspect will continue.
      I cannot accept that there is a case for the type of national body that the Opposition seek. I ask Opposition Members to accept not only my words—though I am certain to do so on future occasions—but to look at the pattern of behaviour in non-scheme ports. That pattern, even more than my words and those of other Ministers, gives the lie to the Opposition's worst fears.
      Mr. Loyden: The Government have failed to remove our doubts about how seriously they approach training matters. The point was made more than once in Committee that, in only two decades, the industry's practices and cargo handling techniques have been revolutionised, so that the modern docks industry bears no resemblance to that which existed before the war, shortly after the war, and even in the early 1960s. That transformation took place under the wing, and with the direct assistance, of the National Dock Labour Board. It

      1001
      was responsible for providing the training that transformed dockers from men who wore hooks in their belts and pushed hand bogeys on the dock estate to skilled workers who handle equipment having a customs value of between £250,000 and £750,000 per piece.
      That training embraced the operation of everything from the forklift truck to the gantry crane, and all the other mechanical operations, which are different from those used in any other industry and probably unique. A tugmaster loading a ro-ro vessel, for example, is worth watching. It is a demanding task that dock workers have been trained to carry out to great effect, and it is to their credit that they have been able to adapt.
      Conservative Members have referred to the number of dock labour disputes. I remind the House that the record number of 427 disputes, of which 410 were official, was set before the establishment of the national dock labour scheme. Unofficial strikes were caused by the conditions prevailing in the industry before the scheme came into existence. It brought order where chaos existed. There has been a move away from traditional cargo handling methods to hi-tech operations such as containerisation, palletisation, ro-ro and bulk cargo handling. They have all been mastered by dock workers as a consequence of the good training provided by the National Dock Labour Board.
      I put to the Minister the example of the small firm—the sweetheart of the Tory party, which it views as a cherished friend—employing 60 registered dock workers. How will such a company provide adequate training? There will be no legislation, other than that of a general nature that the Minister outlined, requiring employers to provide proper training. We are concerned about the quality of training that will follow in the wake of the scheme's abolition.
      My mind is open, but I remain to be convinced that we have nothing to fear and that when the transitional period ends, the void that follows will be immediately filled by training schemes of the quality that the industry previously enjoyed. Neither am I convinced that the services needed by the industry will be retained. It is a dangerous industry in which to work. In Committee, I reported the death only a few weeks previously of a registered dock worker in the port of Liverpool; his mate was taken to hospital seriously injured after an attempt to save his comrade after a load had broken from its swing and buried the docker under a weight of timber.
      The dock industry presents many such hazards, which require specific medical provision. National Health Service facilities may be as far away as five miles. Before the present Government came to power, there was in existence almost on the dock road in Liverpool the Royal hospital, but that is now gone. The distance now between the docks and the nearest hospital is measured in miles rather than yards.
      The Minister must accept that we are not weaving a fantasy about the docks industry. During debates on the national dock labour scheme, Conservative Members showed in the most naked way that they know little or nothing about the industry. That is the great danger. They are not prepared to move their minds away from the briefs that they are given and to listen to informed comment, take it on board, and act upon it. Certainly there is no evidence that the Minister has given proper thought and consideration to the points made both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
      1002
      I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be able to persuade us that we are all doubting Thomases and that he has the best interests of dock workers in mind.
      Mr. David Davis: The nub of the case made by my hon. Friend the Minister is that the evidence from non-scheme ports is that a special scheme of Government intervention in training would not be advantageous. Throughout the Committee stage and today, there have been either explicit or implicit claims of superiority for the training provided under the dock labour scheme. Ironically, there were claims also of a lack of training as a way of justifying ghosting, but I put that matter to one side.
      The facts do not support either general or specific claims of superiority. The statistics show that in 1987, which is the last year for which comparative figures are available, about 33 per cent. of scheme employees underwent scheme training lasting an average of three days. In the nearest equivalent industry, transport and commercial, 40 per cent. of employees underwent 10 days of training per employee—roughly four times as much training.
      7 pm
      We have been accused of using the example of Felixstowe ad nauseam, but there was a good article on that port in the Sunday Times on 16 April this year from which I want to quote one extract. A young worker called Mark Green, who has just started work at Felixstowe, said:
      "I may not seem to have much of a job now, but the training schemes at the port arc great…You can work your way up and win whatever responsibility you want."
      He went on to speak about how he wanted to become a driver of one of the major cranes.
      We have been accused, with some substance, of using Felixstowe as an argument. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is more training going on there than in the rest of the scheme ports put together. Some members of the Committee—I am glad to say that this has not happened today—focused their attack on what they called cowboy operators. Nobody defined that term. We were left to guess whether it described a pioneering spirit of enterprise or something rather less flattering. I suspect that the latter is the case. They were put forward as an explanation of how some of the smaller ports obtained business at the expense of the larger scheme ports. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who unfortunately is not with us today, attributed the loss of trade from scheme ports to non-scheme ports to the cowboy operators—the low-cost operators—and he made specific allegations about training.
      I felt that it was incumbent on me to check the facts. Some of the work was done for us in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. He checked one of the smaller port operators, a company called Trent Wharfage. He described how that private operator took on unskilled personnel and trained them to operate major pieces of port equipment, such as those described by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), either by in-house training or through contract training outside.
      That did not seem to be enough evidence, so I telephoned small port employers in the Humber area. The market share of Humber traffic of those smaller ports grew from 15 per cent. to 21 per cent. at the expense of scheme ports in just five years. They did that against the odds.

      1003
      Conditions were difficult. They had difficult rivers and locations on small, poor roads, so their success was the result of something other than geographic location.
      I called two small ports at Selby and Howden to get an idea of what they did on training. I gave no warning that I intended to call but in one case a training manager was in the general manager's office when I rang. It says something that a small operation employing 30 to 40 people has a training manager.
      I was told a number of things. First, the ports were trade unionised and had TGWU representation, with proper contract terms. I asked about safety and skill training and, specifically, about training in the use of cranes, vehicles, forklifts and so on. It became apparent that they had schemes, in-house and contract, with training boards outside in the construction and road transport industries for each of those areas.
      Those ports managers were spontaneously aware of the new docks regulations. They knew that several years of training was required for the use of heavy cranes. They knew that the code of practice required forklift driver certification. That was not the response of cowboy operators, in the sense that that term was used by Opposition Members.
      The point that came across clearly was more a matter of common sense, which the hon. Member for Garston will understand. It was not in the interests of such ports to allow untrained men to use highly expensive and heavy equipment of the type commonly bought today—the sort of equipment that the hon. Gentleman described.
      I was told that a 90-tonne crane cost £500,000. For a man to use that crane he has to be sent away for two weeks' intensive training at a cost of £500, plus his salary. Damage can be done by the untrained use of such equipment. No one in his right mind would skimp £500 and risk £500,000. I am putting entirely on one side the sort of accidents that could occur from misuse, such as the hon. Gentleman described. No one with any sense of responsibility, or even self-interest, would not train such operators. I shall not waste time now, but I could give further examples, such as the £125,000 forklift truck.
      There are three components of a training decision in the docks industry. The first, rightly, is safety. Any responsible manager would put that at the top of his priorities, but even if he did not, health and safety at work regulations and the specific docks regulations of 1988 which came into effect on 1 January this year would ensure safety. Therefore, there is already a safety net. On skills, the economic argument that I have just explained is ovrwhelming from the point of view of the individual employer, whether enormous like Felixstowe or tiny link Howden.
      Finally, there is the need to have the money available. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). People do not need to be forced to do something that is in their own interests, but they need money for investment.
      Safety, skils and money are the three components of a training decision. The national dock labour scheme does nothing to add to the regulations on safety. It does nothing to enhance the importance of skills, because it reduces the
      1004
      productivity of the equipment and it positively undermines prosperity. Therefore, it is not tenable to say that the scheme in any way helps training in Britain.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) were simply saying that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. That is all that the amendment is about. It is not a wrecking amendment or one that tries to continue the dock labour scheme by some other means. It merely asks that the Government, in the hiatus that they have created by rushing the Bill through the House, tell the House what will happen with regard to training and medical care.
      I am proud to say that I am sponsored by the TGWU, of which I have been a member for some 40 years. I do not have any docks of any significance in my constituency. I have a few dock workers in Runcorn and I may have a few who work in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston; but, like every other hon. Member, I live on an island and docks are important to us all because any difficulty with the docks or the dock workers can create a complete stranglehold on our economy.
      We are going into 1992 and we are talking about training for dock workers. I was appalled to hear the Minister ask whether the burden of training should be on the employer or on the taxpayer. Other industries—for example, ICI—do not talk about the burden of training. Training is an important investment.
      The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) talked about crane drivers and heavy equipment. He was right to say that no industry would let loose an unskilled hand on £500,000 worth of equipment, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about training for the ordinary, unskilled individual who needs to be trained just as much as the crane driver, because without it he could be involved in an accident or create infinite damage simply through ignorance.
      I envisage an increase in casualisation, which currently stands at only 6 per cent. because there is a dock labour scheme. Without it, casualisation would increase considerably. Unskilled people will be glad to have a job and will be willing to do anything. They will abandon the safety conditions and all the rules because they desperately want a job. They will not press for safety rules or for adequate training. That has already happened with the YTS, especially in the building industry. We are an island nation wholly dependent upon the docks.
      The Minister's complacent attitude amazes me because we are approaching 1992 and a Europe in which Germany, France, Italy, Spain and even Greece passionately believe in the importance of proper training—not just for highly skilled workers but for all workers. In Germany, someone cannot be even a shop assistant until he has received proper training. That is right, because such people do a skilled job. A docker does a dangerous job. When I take my car on a ferry when I am travelling abroad, I am amazed by the skilled jobs being carried out by dock workers. They put quarts into pint pots. No unskilled person could do that.
      I fear that the Bill will mean a dilution of training standards. The National Dock Labour Board currently sets training standards. The Minister said that it does not do enough, which may be true, but the Government should insist that it does more. If Felixstowe is so much better without the dock labour scheme, I hope that the

      1005
      Government, in the hiatus that they are creating, will insist that all other ports are brought up to Felixstowe's standard. Instead, I fear that the position in most ports will become considerably worse under this Bill, which has been rushed through the House, at the insistence of the port employers, almost by sleight of hand. The amendment simply asks the Government to tell us what they intend to do with training in the interim period. We do not want them to throw out the baby with the bath water.
      Clause 3 is being discussed with this proposed amendment to clause 2 under the guillotine procedure, although the connection between the two clauses is difficult to understand. Clause 3 is a gauleiter clause; it provides that, if there is any disagreement between the Secretary of State and the members of the board, the Secretary of State can sack them and appoint another person to carry out their duties. If that person then does not carry out those duties to his satisfaction, he can also be sacked. Why appoint that other person? Why does not the Secretary of State say that he will do the job, in accordance with his wishes and diktats? It is a gauleiter clause, because any person appointed under it will have to do precisely what the Secretary of State says or be sacked.
      This country will be greatly affected in 1992 by its complete lack of interest in training and the attitude that training is a burden. Training is not a burden; it is an investment, and all good industries regard it as such. It chills me to hear the Minister refer to training as a burden, whether on the taxpayer or industry.
      Mr. Nicholls: I said that, if the National Dock Labour Board imposed a levy during a transitional period it would be a burden. That is one reason why we think our proposed scheme is right. The money spent by an employer on training is very much an investment, which is why I cited the example of Felixstowe. That might he a semantic point, but it is crucial. I said that a levy would be a burden, not that investment in training would be a burden.
      Mr. Oakes: The House needs to know exactly what will happen during the transitional period. We do not know what will happen and the Minister will not tell us.
      7.15 pm
      Dr. Godman: A system of levy is not unknown to other maritime industries—for example, every stone of fish landed at a British port by a United Kingdom registered fishing vessel is subject to levy. That levy is used towards the costs of running the industry and the costs of training fishermen.
      Mr. Oakes: I know nothing about the fishing industry, but I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, it seems an eminently sensible thing to do. It is unfortunate that many industries do not invest in training. Because other European countries invest in training, they will be in a better position than Britain in the mid-1990s.
      Mr. Loyden: I am puzzled by the Minister's remark about a levy being a burden. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware, even if the Minister is not, that the levy pays for training. Therefore, it follows that if the levy is a burden, so is training.
      Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend has hit on a crucial point. The Minister appears to think that spending money on
      1006
      training is wrong, yet the rest of Europe thinks it right. Europe is right and Britain is wrong. The Minister may say that many of our major industries show capitalism at work, but it is good sense to invest money to obtain the best safety record and the best efficiency from the work force. Even a kid of 17 or 18 should be trained, for his own safety, for that of his workmates and for the efficiency of the industry in which he works. The Bill creates a hiatus. The Government do not know what will happen about training.
      This is not a wrecking amendment. It is a sensible amendment. I ask the Minister, please, at least to consider it so that in another place the idea of providing proper training in the docks industry can be invesigated further by means of a Government amendment.
      Mr. Michael Jack: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said about training but I do not know whether he listened to the Minister when he referred to training and prayed in aid the port of Felixstowe, where large sums are being spent on training. The right hon. Gentleman almost seemed to imply that the only ports that do any training are scheme ports, and that the non-scheme ports do no training whatsoever. That is not the case. The Minister said that Felixstowe spends a great deal of money on training.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consider what would happen in a port that recruited large numbers of so-called unskilled persons.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop this point because it is crucial to the argument of the right hon. Member for Halton.
      The right hon. Gentleman told us to beware of those ports that might recruit unskilled labour. However. I pray in aid an article in the Financial Times of 28 March by Jimmy Burns. It is headed:
      "Dockers fear tide turning against closed shop."
      I read the article with interest. It refers to Felixstowe, where the Transport and General Workers Union has a single union agreement. I shall say a word or two later about the training role of trade unions. The article says that Felixstowe's recruitment
      "is predominantly local, among men with no experience in dock work."
      Felixstowe was the first port in the United Kingdom to handle more than 1 million TEUs, which are 20ft equivalent container units, in a single year. That port has built its success on the use of unskilled labour which had no previous experience of dock work.
      I have visited Felixstowe and seen the port in action. It is a quite remarkable place to visit. Its rate of expansion is very rapid. When I visited Felixstowe, the port was expanding so rapidly that, as soon as the tarmac was laid, containers were put on to it. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that the growth of Felixstowe had led to an unacceptably high level of accidents or that all the progress there had been achieved without any form of training.
      Mr. Oakes rose—
      Mr. Jack: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
      Mr. Oakes: Yes. I am not attacking the port of Felixstowe. All I am asking the Government is, if the training at the port of Felixstowe is so good, why create a

      1007
      hiatus, which the Bill does in the Government's rush to get it through? Why do they not accept the amendment and bring every port up to the standard at Felixstowe?
      Mr. Jack: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position and said that the training procedures at Felixstowe are excellent. I do not think that under the new arrangements the port employers will say, "Now that we are non-scheme ports, we shall stop providing any training until some future date." It does not add up; it is impractical. Felixstowe shows how effective it is to devise training that suits local needs. Felixstowe is a general cargo and container port. Smaller vessels also call at Felixstowe, for which a specific type of training is required. Felixstowe has got round that problem.
      I am now prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Will he go a little further than Felixstowe and say what standard of training is provided in some of the other non-scheme ports? We keep hearing about Felixstowe, but what about some of the others?
      Mr. Jack: I have every reason to believe that the other non-scheme ports also provide a high level of training. Not too long ago I visited the port of Dover. I asked those who operate the ferries what new training requirements had been introduced after the Zeebrugge disaster. I was most impressed by the high levels of training and checking that had been introduced to counteract some of the previous discrepancies.
      Mr. Banks: But it was a bit late.
      Mr. Jack: The Opposition have not suggested that the levels of training that are available in the non-scheme ports are poor, that they do not meet the needs of those ports and that they engender bad practice. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the House to adopt the amendment, that is the kind of argument that I would have expected him to use, but he has not done so.
      Training is not just about the mechanics of operating machines. Training is also about attitudes of mind. The amendment suggests that the scheme ports training scheme should be extended to the non-scheme ports, but it says nothing about the types of training that ought to be provided. The Opposition seem to believe that people are more concerned about which button to push, or which lever to pull, or which crane to operate and the correct safety procedures for doing so, but training involves far more than that. Training encompasses an attitude of mind.
      The training at Felixstowe encompasses an attitude of mind and the ability to be flexible. The lack of demarcation practices at that port has helped to make it the success it is. Paragraph 1·6 of the White Paper says:
      "Well-motivated and productive workers are a key element in the success of any business."
      I see no reference to that aspect of training in the amendment. Paragraph 1·7 says that the dock labour scheme
      "sustains attitudes and practices in dock work which run counter to the needs of an efficient and successful ports industry, strong enough to face growing competitive pressures."
      If that is the result of the training that is provided in the scheme ports, I wonder how effective it would be in terms
      1008
      of the attitude of mind that it would export to the non-scheme ports. To command the respect of the House, the amendment ought to have fleshed out in more detail the kinds of training that would be appropriate to the new docks industry. All it suggests is that what we have now should be laid on top of what will be provided. It smacks of a typically Socialist solution.
      The notion that the larger non-scheme ports could act as a training agency for the smaller ports surrounding them would be completely ruled out by the amendment. Liverpool could serve as a centre of excellence for training in other ports. The amendment, as drafted, does not enable us to discuss the training opportunities that might be possible under the new arrangements.
      The right hon. Member for Halton said that this is not a wrecking amendment, but I have a nasty suspicion at the back of my mind that if the House approved the amendment—which I shall certainly not support—there would be no guarantee about the timetable that the new body would follow. I foresee prolonged discussions, endless meetings, committees being set up and training courses reviewed and rejected while the reform of the ports industry, which we hanker after, waits in the wings. The amendment says that we should not press on with training until the new training body is in place, but the amendment provides no timetable for the establishment of that body. It is wrong to ask us to agree to a totally open-ended commitment.
      Mr. James Paice: As my hon. Friend probably knows, I was born in Felixstowe and lived close to the docks for much of my life. Does he agree that Felixstowe has demonstrated that it does not need external help to provide trade? The second part of the amendment refers to the welfare of the work force. Does my hon. Friend agree that Felixstowe has shown clearly by the small number of industrial disputes and the tremendously high wages paid to the dockers that it can maintain a high level of welfare care for its employees, without any external influence? My hon. Friend may be aware that a substantial percentage of the workers at Felixstowe send their children to public schools. That may not be palatable to the Opposition Benches, but it shows the benefit of a prosperous port.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I agree with all that he said. He reflects on paragraph 2·16 of the White Paper, which points to the benefits of a good health and safety policy. Before I became a Member, I was in the produce pre-packing industry.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The what?
      Mr. Jack: Some hon. Members may have heard of apples and lettuces; for the benefit of those who have not, we supplied supermarkets with fresh fruit and vegetables.
      One aspect for which I was responsible was dealing with the trade unions on training and safety. I had great respect for the contribution that the trade unions made to our safety policies which were born out of the needs of our business. Produce pre-packing is not an industry with an overall training board. We were happy to work within the parameters set by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act

      1009
      1974. We produced safety and training statements and we worked with the trade unions. We drew on their knowledge to create the right package for our business.
      That arrangement appears to be mirrored in the port of Felixstowe. If it can work well in that port, could it not work equally well in other ports? Surely Opposition Members can see an enhanced role for the trade unions that they represent. Trade unions have an important role to play and it will not be taken away from them. It has been suggested that, if we do not agree to the amendment, training will cease as soon as the Bill becomes law. I do not think that anyone who has tried to run a modern, efficient ports industry will cease training. I do not see some of the drawbacks to which Opposition Members have referred. I think that people realise the enormous benefits that result from training.
      The amendment is too open-ended. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, it says nothing about funding. It does not go into any detail about the welfare schemes that we might expect. Perhaps we should explore that in more detail. As to the medical aspects, the amendment ignores the exciting and interesting opportunities whereby local health authorities offer employers various forms of occupational medicine and assessment of difficulties associated with particular jobs. If a national scheme was imposed on the industry, local initiatives might well be lost to ports and to dockers. A nationally imposed superstructure is not always the best way to meet the local needs of the ports industry that we all hope to see when the Bill becomes an Act.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall be brief, because time is short. Much has been made of the fact that the Bill was produced suddenly and the way in which it is being bounced through the House. Undoubtedly it has been a long time in gestation. The decision to abolish the National Dock Labour Board must have been taken some time ago or the glossy White Paper and the Bill could not have been produced so quickly. It is clear that the Government were hypnotised by their obsession to do away with the dock labour scheme and that they did not think about what would happen after the scheme was abolished.
      That is particularly galling in relation to training and medical and welfare facilities. I am astonished at the suggestion that everything should be done locally. Government supporters suggest that there is no room for an overall scheme. The docks industry is diverse. The same type of work is not done in each port, whether scheme or non-scheme port, but there is a broad overall pattern and all ports require the same level of competence and the same welfare and medical facilities.
      ICI is a progressive, national employer, as is Marks and Spencer. If such companies, with businesses all over the country, were told that they should not have an overall training scheme but that they should leave training to local managers in Aberdeen, Felixstowe or wherever, they would think that that was ridiculous. Those companies use their size and capacity to develop training schemes and welfare facilities to benefit all their employees. All we are suggesting in the amendment is that there should be a scheme that takes the best and makes it available all over the country.
      I have never before heard Ministers pay such plaudits to a Labour Government. Every Conservative Member quoted the Health and Safety at Work etc. 1974 Act. Its
      1010
      significance was that it imposed conditions on every employer; an employer does not have the right to opt out. The significant point about the date, 1974, is that it was a long time after the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1974 it became necessary to compel employers to take proper account of health and safety at work. The problem is that the inspectorate has riot been kept up to strength to make sure that the Act is enforced.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked a specific question of the Minister about something in his constituency. What did the Minister say? He told him that he should have raised the matter earlier. My hon. Friend did; he has been raising it for some time. The Minister did not say, as I would have expected, "I am disappointed to hear that. Tell me straight away the name of the company, and where it operates, and I will ensure that my inspectors are there tomorrow. If it is not providing proper conditions, action will he taken against it under the Act." We did not hear that from the Minister. He just said that it was up to employers to do what they liked.
      The Government do not want just to destroy the dock labour scheme; they want to make sure that the industry is fragmented. Every time that we debate the issue, we hear tales about the new jobs that will be created. The jobs that have been lost disappeared not because of the scheme but because of changes in conditions. The Minister does not seem to understand that the catalyst that he is producing will lead to a deterioration in conditions in the industry. If the ports are to compete and to produce more jobs, what advantages will there be in individual ports having day-to-day negotiations with their employees? Will the ports decide to cut wages? Presumably the Government will say that that is not the intention of the scheme, although some of us suspect that it may be. The only room to cut costs will be in matters such as training, health, welfare and safety. In the scandal that will follow, I fear that conditions will be driven down and that training will go out of the window.
      The Government's ethos is that the market should decide. They have introduced all sorts of schemes such as enterprise zones and areas where planning considerations do not apply in order to attract jobs. The Government's attack on unemployment is not to create conditions and enthusiasm for investment, but to change the circumstances and drive down costs to ensure that the employees pay the price.
      The amendment is significant. I certainly hope that the Government will think again and realise the advantage of an overall training scheme where new employees can learn from good employees and good employees can be used to change unsatisfactory conditions. The amendment is evidently worth supporting. I shall vote for it; I hope that the Government will change their mind and see some sense, even at this late stage.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I shall speak briefly on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I shall speak about amendment No. 2 first because my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred to clause 3 as the gauleiter clause. When we examined the Bill in Committee, we decided that it was the Al Capone clause because when it refers to dismissing the members of the board one at a time it means getting rid of them all at one go. We saw shades of the St. Valentine's day massacre as the Secretary of State, who obviously fitted Al Capone to a T, would wipe out everyone in one

      1011
      go. When we went down the gangway, we could see close similarities with many Chicago-type gangsters facing us on the Conservative Benches. One immediately recognised the Government Whip as Frank Nitty, the enforcer, and in view of the size of the Minister of State, Department of Employment, he is obviously Legs Diamond. Who else could the Minister for Public Transport be than Baby Face Nelson? That is the humorous side, but it is a serious matter.
      It is quite clear that in the interim period, members of the board will be given instructions and offers that they can only refuse and then Al Capone—the Secretary of State—will move in and get rid of them all at once, no doubt consulting the list of the stooges and lickspittles in his Department to make sure that the nominee who replaces them is "one of ours", as that is the Prime Minister's intention.
      Clause 3(4) states that the Secretary of State will decide
      "The terms of service and remuneration of any such person".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing amendment No. 1; he is talking to amendment No. 2, which we have not yet reached.
      Mr. Banks: I thought that we were to dismiss the amendments by 8 o'clock, so if I did not make my remarks now, I did not see where I could get them in, except perhaps on Third Reading. I listened carefully to what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not withdraw my remarks, although they appear to have been wholly out of order.
      This is a serious matter and appears to give inordinate power to the Secretary of State, which in Committee and in the House we find quite unacceptable.
      I shall move on briefly to training. The Government are getting rid of the scheme, so it is up to the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that training will not suffer. The 1987 dock labour scheme report reveals the extent of training nationally. I said that the non-scheme ports needed the discipline of a national training scheme because, frankly, I feel that when the national scheme is abolished, not the best but the worst practices will emerge in the non-scheme ports.
      My evidence is based on what is happening in industry throughout the country. Training standards and the amount of money that is spent on training in Britain are generally abysmal. The evidence is all there and the Minister is arguing against the facts. On behalf of those who work within scheme and non-scheme ports, we have an absolute right to ask what safeguards the Minister plans to introduce.
      If we are wrong, no great damage will have been done, but if the Minister is wrong there will be enormous damage. That is why it is incumbent on the Minister to provide much firmer assurances than he has so far, because it is his responsibility. He is responsible for removing the national scheme, so he must say what will happen if he is wrong, and how he intends to avoid that.
      7.45 pm
      One reason why national training schemes are in order is that they make sure that the better employers—and there are many of them—do not find that the money they invest in training workers is acting as a subsidy to other
      1012
      employers who poach their employees. It becomes relatively easy for those other employers to say, "As we have saved on training, we can offer a little over the odds to attract the skilled workers that that employer has trained." That is why a national training scheme that exists for the scheme ports would be in the interests of the entire industry, especially the best employers. It would ensure that the practices of the best employers apply right across the board. As the Minister knows, if we had the opportunity, we should like a national scheme that also covered non-scheme ports. National training schemes seem to be the answer to the poor standards of training that exist in the ports and in British industry.
      I refer the Minister to a recent MSC-NEDO report that concluded that British companies rarely consider training a main component of their corporate strategy and do not treat training as a boardroom issue. West German employers spend three times more than British firms on training. The Minister must realise that there is a correlation between the high levels of skill and training in competitive countries such as West Germany and their economic success which is far greater than we are currently enjoying. The Minister must realise that those comparisons exist in international comparable statistics and within the different practices between good and poor employers in Britain.
      It is up to the Minister, since he is throwing something away, to tell us what he will do if it turns out that we are right and he is wrong. If we are wrong, no great damage will be caused, but if he is wrong, a great deal of damage will be inflicted on the ports industry.
      Mr. John McAllion: I shall be brief so that the Minister can reply to the debate.
      Earlier, a Conservative Member expressed concern about the timetabling which the amendment would apply and was concerned that it might create delays, as it would take some time to negotiate the body referred to in the amendment. I am surprised that any Conservative Member should dare to mention timetabling as, apart from wartime, it is difficult to recall any Bill being rushed through the House of Commons with the haste that the Dock Work Bill has been rushed through in the past few weeks. That haste is demonstrated by the lack of consideration in the Bill and by the Government to the implications of abolishing the National Dock Labour Board without making adequate provision for alternative training arrangements.
      The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that he was opposed to any national scheme. I assume that his opposition is based on the fact that national schemes set down minimum requirements from which employers cannot escape. He would much prefer local arrangements to be in place because they allow employers to get away with as much as they can without living up to the national standards which would be applied by a national training body.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that kind of criticism. We have been talking about some of the most effective, efficient and profitable ports in the United Kingdom, such as Felixstowe, that have done extremely well by generating their own training programmes. They are not trying to get away with anything. Training has been an integral part of their business.
      Mr. McAllion: It seems that Conservative members rest their entire case on the example of Felixstowe. That is not the only port in Britain. Many other ports, and particularly small ones, will quickly get away from national minimum requirements.
      Mr. David Davis rose—
      Mr. McAllion: I will not give way again because I am anxious to give the Minister a few minutes in which to reply. The Government have imposed the guillotine. If, in addition, Conservative Members try to intervene, so giving us even less time in which to make the points that we must make, we shall be doubly penalised.
      The hon. Member for Fylde said that training was an attitude of mind. He must accept that the trust placed in employers to deliver that training is also an attitude of mind. Unfortunately, we have experience of employers in many areas of the economy not delivering on training, health and safety and, as a result, making the lives of workers a misery. That is why we oppose the Bill and are trying to amend it so as to make it slightly more progressive and considerate of workers.
      In his earlier remarks, the Minister claimed that he did not say that training was a burden; or that, if he said it, he meant to refer only to the levy. I remind him that the Government have abolished industrial training boards and closed down skill centres and are selling them off for huge profits. That suggests that it is not only the levy that concerns them. Having abolished industrial training boards and closed down skill centres, we question their whole approach to national training requirements. That is why my hon. Friends and I are anxious to amend the Bill.
      The Minister tried to paint a picture which would ease the consciences of those who would rather look the other way while the Government attacked the existing protection of workers in the docks industry. He said, for example, that dock work was too sophisticated for employers even to risk neglecting training or the health and safety conditions of their employees. That was so, he said, because money spent in those areas represented essential investment if we were to be successful in European markets after 1992.
      I think the Minister was trying to say that the efficient utilisation of new methods—containerisation, ro-ro, new grain-handling procedures and so on—required employers, in their own self-interest, to protect their work forces. We must judge the validity of that argument as best we can. If employers are so concerned about training and health and safety in the ports, why should it be intolerable to expect them to contribute to a levy for a national body to secure acceptable arrangements for training and health and safety standards?
      The Minister suggested that that would inhibit the acceptance by employers of their responsibilities in the matter. If this House had taken that attitude in the 19th century, we would not have had the factories legislation and we should still have 10-year-olds working an 18-hour day in the satanic mills. That would have been the case had we left it to employers and expected them to be responsible. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that employers accept their responsibilities, and that is why the Bill should be amended in the way that we suggest.
      The Minister then argued that there already existed general health and safety legislation and national training schemes which employers could use for their work forces.
      1014
      I do not know whether the Minister was referring to the youth training scheme or the employment training scheme, or both. If he had such schemes in mind, why should he consider them sufficient to meet the sophisticated requirements of the ports that, he said, were necessary at Felixstowe and elsewhere? I assure the hon. Gentleman that Felixstowe does not consider such national schemes to be sufficient. That is why, as we have been told time and again, Felixstowe has invested £570,000 in one year to implement its training requirements.
      In other words, if what exists is not good enough for Felixstowe, why should it be good enough for all the other ports in this country? What is the Minister doing to ensure that all those other ports meet the standards set by Felixstowe and that they invest in the training schemes that are required?
      The Minister said at one stage that the Government wanted arrangements that were appropriate to a particular port and work force. That must mean that there will be different arrangements in different ports. In huge ports which make large investments, there may be adequate training schemes, but in smaller ports which have only small sums to invest in training and in health and safety standards, different standards will apply. That will mean that the lives of the men who work in those smaller ports could be at risk, all because this measure is being forced through Parliament in such haste that we are unable to give all the issues sufficient attention.
      The Minister said that it was not in the interest of port employers to use unskilled labour, although we then heard from Conservative Members that that had been done in Felixstowe for many years. If what the Minister said is true, why is there still 6 per cent. casualism in non-registered ports? What about the position of Port Glasgow, where, we have been told, unemployed workers are being paid £2·50 an hour to work in the docks? We must have answers to those questions.
      Such developments have not spread more widely in the non-registered ports because of the existence of the national dock labour scheme, and the national agreements in the non-registered ports have been based on that scheme. In other words, take away the dock labour scheme and there can be an attack on the national agreements that the Transport and General Workers Union has negotiated in the other ports. The result will be differing conditions in the various ports throughout the country. Those working in small ports will find their lives at risk. That is what the Government have in mind, and that is why we must amend the Bill.
      Mr. Nicholls: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the few minutes available to me I will do my best to answer the more salient points that were made in the debate.
      Although he will not thank me for saying so, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) summed up what the debate has been about and why the amendment cannot be accepted when he described in his opening remarks the transformation that there has been in training. He described his experience over the years, in the light of his time in the docks, and pointed out that there had been almost a revolution in the way in which the docks operate. He spoke of the skills that dockers now had and the equipment they were being called on to operate. He painted a picture of a modern industry in which it would be impossible for casualism to operate.

      1015
      That theme has run through all the contributions that have been made by Opposition Members throughout the debate. It works on the supposition that one can turn one's face away from the developments that have taken place and say that the lessons of the 1920s, and perhaps even of the 1820s, show that if casualism and a lack of training existed before, the same could happen again today. The hon. Member for Garston knows better than most that that is not a sustainable attitude to take.
      In a sense, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made the same mistake. He said that the scheme ports had in some way kept up standards in the non-scheme ports and that, in some way, if the scheme ports were swept away, standards would automatically sink. I appreciate the sincerity with which such a course may be advocated, but it is a manifest absurdity masquerading as a self-evident truth. A prosperous ports industry has grown up, not so much because of the changing patterns of technology, but because non-scheme ports have developed precisely because of the existence of scheme ports, often on the same estuaries and even on the same parts of the coast.
      For every scheme port one will find a non-scheme port which was once insignificant, if not virtually non-existent. The presence of the scheme ports has produced those ports, and they throw the scheme ports into a certain light. The idea that in some way a declining sector of the industry has been able by its own inadequacies to bring on the non-scheme ports—the idea that in some way the practice of non-scheme ports is maintaining standards—is a complete absurdity. While I appreciate the sincerity with which the argument is adduced, I could not accept it.
      The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said—this theme was echoed by several of his hon. Friends—that it was a question of throwing out the baby with the bath water. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in an excellent speech, pointed out that that was a Socialist attitude to life. I accept that Labour Members have a number of crosses to bear, one of them being their addiction to Socialism, but is nonsense to assume that, if things were not laid down in some impossible, bureaucratic, 1950s-type collectivist framework, they would not work.
      Although the right hon. Member for Halton spoke about the baby and the bath water, he should accept that the baby of which we are talking is a pattern of training in non-scheme ports which—I make no apology for repeating the point—in relation to just one port, Felixstowe, shows that more is being spent on training than in all the non-scheme ports put together. Therefore, the idea that all training will cease as soon as the Bill is passed is nonsense.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) helped me by remembering that I am a lawyer. He said that he wanted to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. For any judge summing up before a jury, that means not that one might think of fantastic reasons why something might be right or wrong but simply that one should be sure on the evidence that the decision one reaches is correct. Those are the words a judge would use in summing up before a jury. If the hon. Member for
      1016
      Newham, North-West looks at what really happens and at the pattern of training as well as the decline that there has been—
      It being eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [8 May] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 225.

      Division No. 213]

      [8.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fraser, John

      Allen, Graham

      Galloway, George

      Anderson, Donald

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      George, Bruce

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Barron, Kevin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Battle, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Beckett, Margaret

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bell, Stuart

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Blair, Tony

      Henderson, Doug

      Blunkett, David

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Boateng, Paul

      Home Robertson, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cartwright, John

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lamond, James

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clay, Bob

      Leighton, Ron

      Clelland, David

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lewis, Terry

      Cohen, Harry

      Litherland, Robert

      Coleman, Donald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Corbett, Robin

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cousins, Jim

      McAllion, John

      Cummings, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McCartney, Ian

      Darling, Alistair

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McKelvey, William

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McLeish, Henry

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dixon, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Doran, Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Douglas, Dick

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Martlew, Eric

      Eadie, Alexander

      Meacher, Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morley, Elliott

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fisher, Mark

      Mullin, Chris

      Flynn, Paul

      Murphy, Paul

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Nellist, Dave

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      1017

      O'Brien, William

      Soley, Clive

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Parry, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Pike, Peter L.

      Strang, Gavin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Straw, Jack

      Prescott, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vaz, Keith

      Radice, Giles

      Walley, Joan

      Randall, Stuart

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Reid, Dr John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Richardson, Jo

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Robertson, George

      Wilson, Brian

      Rogers, Allan

      Winnick, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wray, Jimmy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Colvin, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Allason, Rupert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amess, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Amos, Alan

      Cormack, Patrick

      Arbuthnot, James

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cran, James

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Aspinwall, Jack

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

      Atkinson, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Day, Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Devlin, Tim

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dicks, Terry

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Beggs, Roy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dover, Den

      Bendall, Vivian

      Durant, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Benyon, W.

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Sevan, David Gilroy

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Eric

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Franks, Cecil

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gardiner, George

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gill, Christopher

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bright, Graham

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

      Gow, Ian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gregory, Conal

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Grist, Ian

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butcher, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butler, Chris

      Hannam, John

      Butterfill, John

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

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harris, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayward, Robert

      Churchill, Mr

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Heddle, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      1018

      Hind, Kenneth

      Riddick, Graham

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rost, Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ryder, Richard

      Irvine, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Janman, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shelton, Sir William

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Key, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kilfedder, James

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Speller, Tony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lang, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Squire, Robin

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stern, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maclean, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Sumberg, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tracey, Richard

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Ward, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Norris, Steve

      Watts, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wells, Bowen

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wheeler, John

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Paice, James

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wilshire, David

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wood, Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Yeo, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Price, Sir David

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Redwood, John

      Mr. Michael Fallon.

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise sincerely to the Minister and the House for delaying this debate. I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is consistent with the rules of the House on relevance to retain on the Order Paper the midnight debate on car emissions. In the debate, the Government are apparently seeking the advice of the House on what should be done about the directive, in view of the last-minute amendment by the European Parliament. Like many other hon. Members, I have studied the papers, and an amendment has been tabled. However, at 4 pm today, we learned that this morning, in Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment outlined in specific detail the position of

      1019
      Her Majesty's Government in advance of the meeting of the Council on 9 June. That opinion is now part of the formal procedures in Brussels and there is no way in which any opinion or any decision of the House at midnight tonight can have an effect.
      How can it make sense for the House to sit for one and a half hours at midnight to discuss what should be done on an issue when action has already been taken this morning? Should not this anomaly at least be reported to the Select Committee on Procedure? I appreciate the problems, but it seems nonsense for the House to debate at midnight a decision that has already been made.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is a matter over which neither I nor Mr. Speaker has any control. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will seek to make his point in the course of the debate, when the Minister may take account of it and respond accordingly.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.13 pm
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a long debate in Committee on the details of the Bill. What became even clearer during that debate is that the dock labour scheme suffers from a range of fundamental defects. It is a complete anomaly in the labour conditions of today, it has added to the costs of the ports covered by the scheme and has hindered their competitive position, and it has led to undoubted and unquestioned restrictive practices. But what it has not achieved has been more trade for scheme ports and, above all, more employment in scheme ports.
      The position remains that the dock labour scheme creates a statutory monopoly for dock work in 40 of the major ports of this country. That means that only employers and dockers who are registered with one of the local dock boards can carry out dock work in ports covered by the scheme. That monopoly is enforced by criminal penalties—a maximum penalty of up to three months' imprisonment. It is an entirely wrong use of the criminal law to limit employment opportunities in this country.
      The country has suffered not only through lost employment opportunities, but through the costs the scheme has imposed. The results of the trans-shipment survey carried out by the Department of Transport, published earlier this month, show just how much the scheme places its ports at a competitive disadvantage, with ports such as Tilbury and Southampton charging almost 30 and 40 per cent. more respectively than non-scheme Felixstowe for handling similar container cargo.
      The scheme has meant extra costs for the consumer, industry and the taxpayer, who has so far paid out over £770 million in financial subsidy and through the costs of the voluntary severance scheme because it has been the only way of reducing surpluses of dock workers. As the debate in Committee made clear, restrictive practices have remained widespread, while at each scheme port, there have been complex sets of rules about what is and what is not dock work. What has the scheme achieved? It has
      1020
      certainly not achieved a secure career for the registered dock workers themselves. Equally, it has not achieved good industrial relations in our ports.
      Doubtless the authors of the dock labour scheme thought that in creating a statutory monopoly for dock work and ending the abuse of casual working they would bring about a significant improvement of industrial relations in the docks. By no measure has that been the case. There have been major strikes in every decade since the scheme began in 1947. The number of days lost as a result of strikes by registered dock workers in the scheme ports, according to the National Dock Labour Board's own figures, is still three times the national average. Between 1985 and 1987, the scheme ports lost something like 528 man days for every 1,000 employees compared with a total of 183 lost for every 1,000 in the rest of industry. In the 20 years between 1967 and 1987, there were over 3,500 strikes involving registered dock workers which resulted in 4 million working days being lost in scheme ports. That is a rate of over three disputes per week.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the Government themselves acknowledge that in some of the scheme ports, there has been enormous efficiency and a successful drive for improvement. If the Government had intended to abolish the scheme all along, why did they not say so in their election manifesto? They have, in effect, led many dock workers up the garden path and have provoked a conflict in which we may well have a national dock strike, with all the perils to the economy that that could bring. Why was the abolition of the scheme not included in the manifesto?
      Mr. Fowler: We have never made any secret of the fact that we have been looking at barriers to employment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to swap stories about what is or is not in an election manifesto, I must point out that he will find that the 1976 legislation, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, was not set out in their election manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] It is true.
      Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Gentleman had better check his facts before he misleads the House about our legislation. He misleads the House badly enough about his own legislation, so he should not mislead it about ours as well. Of course that legislation was set out in our manifesto. That is one of the reasons why it was introduced in the House.
      Mr. Fowler: I shall check what the right hon. Gentleman says.
      Mr. Wareing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Fowler: I want to reply to the right hon. Gentleman first. Over the years, a number of offers have been made by employers and a suggestion was certainly put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was Secretary of State for Transport. On every occasion when it was suggested that negotiations on the national dock labour scheme should take place, the reply was the same from Mr. Connolly of the Transport and General Workers Union—that there was no point in having negotiations on either ending or

      1021
      amending the scheme because that would be met by immediate strike action. That is the position that we have had to face.
      Mr. Wareing: The Secretary of State has answered, to his own satisfaction, the question about the absence from the Conservative manifesto of any commitment to abolish the dock labour scheme. However, he will recall that on 19 January the Prime Minister said that she had no plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme. That was reiterated by the right hon. Gentleman himself when answering one of his hon. Friends on 20 March, 17 days before the publication of the White Paper on this subject. Can the Secretary of State say on precisely what date he gave instructions to his civil servants to draft a White Paper to abolish the scheme?
      Mr. Fowler: No, we would not do that. I remember clearly the occasion that the hon. Gentleman refers to. One of my hon. Friends asked me a question. It was on a statement on another matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wriggle, wriggle."] I am not wriggling at all because my hon. Friend rightly made a contribution and I said at that time that I had nothing to add to any statements that had been made before. We then had a statement on the Floor of the House and brought out the White Paper. What the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition really object to is that there was no leaking of the proposals beforehand. They cannot get used to the fact that the proposals were not leaked in advance and that they did not have the opportunity of leaking them or of publishing the White Paper in advance of the debate on this subject as they did with the Health Service White Paper.
      What has been typical of this debate and of everything that took place in Committee is that Opposition Members will use any argument that is extraneous to the detail of the dock labour scheme. As we sat through hour after hour in Committee, virtually no Opposition Member, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), rose to defend the detail of the dock labour scheme. That has been the most significant feature of the whole debate.
      Doubtless the authors of the scheme thought that there would be not only an improvement in industrial relations but a better position in relation to jobs and employment in the docks for registered dock workers. However, when one considers the impact of the scheme, one realises that jobs have gone and that the new recruitment of young people has been severely limited. Thousands of registered dock workes have volunteered to leave the industry. Just after the war, there were 82,000 registered dock workers; today there are 9,400.
      Clearly, there is an inevitability about some of the reductions, but I ask the House to compare that position with the position of those working in ports that are outside the scheme. By definition, the non-scheme ports were of no consequence in cargo handling in 1947 when the scheme was drawn up. That is why they were left out of the scheme. Yet in the intervening years, ports outside the scheme have come to account for half our trade in value and 30 per cent. of our trade in volume. Employment of dock workers has now risen to 4,000 and nearly one in three of all dockers now work in non-scheme ports. Investment in ports such as Felixstowe and Dover dwarfs any investment in scheme ports. The record of the
      1022
      non-scheme ports, gives the lie to some of the charges that have been made about the abolition of the present dock labour scheme.
      In spite of all that, the only pledge made by the Opposition Front Bench in Committee was that they would reintroduce a new statutory dock scheme if they were elected and that they would extend it to new occupations such as warehousing. They intend to spread such a scheme to half a mile from the waterfront. That was the effect of one of the amendments that they tabled. In addition, they wish, want and are pledged to extend the scheme to every port in the country, including the ports that are not covered by the dock labour scheme now. If I can make a prediction, I believe that that will prove to be one of the biggest and most unpopular millstones that even the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has placed around the neck of his party. Not content with reintroducing—
      Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be enlarging his speech in this Third Reading debate to discuss matters that are not in the Bill. Will we all have a full chance to answer that part of the right hon. Gentleman's case, along with our answers to the rest of his case, when he gets round to defending the Bill itself?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the Third Reading of a Bill should be restricted to what is in the Bill, but I have heard nothing so far from the Secretary of State that goes outside that.
      Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That intervention shows the acute sensitivity of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). Indeed, no hon. Member should be more sensitive about the dock work than the right hon. Gentleman. His record is one of the most appalling of any Secretary of State in the 50 years of this scheme.
      Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I could, of course, raise this as a point of order. Whatever else may be said about what I have said in the past, such comments are certainly not in order on the Third Reading of this Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman eventually come round to discussing his own Bill?
      Mr. Fowler: Most certainly 1 will, but not before I have left this point. Again I point out to the House the acute sensitivity of the right hon. Gentleman. We look forward to a political debate outside the House on this matter—
      Mr. Tony Banks: Any time, sunshine.
      Mr. Fowler: In fact, I suspect that we look forward to that debate rather more than the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
      Throughout the debate, one point has come over. The defenders of the present dock labour scheme are fighting yesterday's battles; they are defending the scheme as if we had the conditions of the 1930s and 1940s. Although I very much respect the position of the hon. Member for Garston and his experience, I do not believe that he is correct in seeking to fight the Bill as if the conditions of today are those that applied straight after the second world war. We can all agree that the scheme was introduced to prevent casualism and that none of us wants to see the conditions of 50 years ago return in this country. But there is

      1023
      absolutely no reason to believe that there will be such a return. There is every reason to believe that there will be no return to casualism.
      Let us consider the experience of non-scheme ports. The advance of the ports outside the scheme has not been achieved by either low pay or casualism. Dockers are well paid and the enormous changes in the way ships are unloaded—with new technology and containerisation—have transformed the nature of dock work and virtually eliminated the scope for casual work. Dock work is now highly skilled, specialist work which requires the use of sophisticated machinery. It requires a permanent and well-trained work force. The days when large numbers of unskilled labourers assembled waiting to see whether there was work for them have gone for good—and everyone is glad of that.
      To underline that point, the employers in the present scheme ports have given an assurance that, after abolition, there will be no return to casual employment. That assurance is crucial. We have a dock labour scheme to prevent casualism. Port companies employing more than 90 per cent. of registered dock workers have given an undertaking that there will be no return to the casual system of working. It is not just a matter of the pledge or the assurance that they are giving, and practice in non-scheme ports already shows that that is a bogus argument. Several members of the Committee appreciated that point only too well.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: If the employers are so certain about their pledges, why will they not meet representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union and start negotiations on the conditions that will follow the scheme? Where they can reach a national agreement to have no casual labour, that would be the most constructive thing to do. I hope that the Minister will do his best to make employers get down to negotiations. That is the way to make progress.
      Mr. Fowler: Precisely that offer—not the offer that the hon. Gentleman wants, but the offer of talks—has most certainly been given by the employers. The employers are saying that negotiations and talks should take place at the local level, not at the national level. That is a sensible position to be in. The National Association of Port Employers does not run the ports. The port employers are the local ports. Of course, not all of them own only one port. For example, Associated British Ports owns several ports. Therefore, negotiations should take place at the local level. The Transport and General Workers Union should examine why it will not join in such negotiations and is instructing its members to boycott them.
      I recognise that the debate takes place when there is the threat of industrial action on the abolition of the scheme. I believe such action would be entirely unjustified and totally against the interests of the dockers. The only result would be to drive more trade from the scheme ports, and therefore to put at risk jobs in the ports. It cannot be in anyone's interest for there to be a strike, particularly when clear assurances have been given that there will be no return to casual working; when clear offers have been made by port employers throughout the country to discuss future arrangements in individual ports; when generous compensation has been offered in the case of any docker
      1024
      —such dockers are very much the minority—who becomes redundant; and, above all, when the end of the scheme is a major step to achieving a modern ports industry—a ports industry with a future. That is in the interests of everyone working in the ports.
      That goal has received wide support outside the House. It has certainly received support from the industry, which stands to gain from a more competitive ports industry. It has received support from organisations such as chambers of commerce, whose members in port areas know how the scheme's restrictions have blighted business and investment. It has received support from potential investors in port areas, in warehousing and in road haulage who, to date, have held back for fear of incurring the scheme's unique straitjacket of restrictions. Port users and port investors are persuaded of the need for the scheme's abolition simply because the case against it is so overwhelming. They have nothing to gain from strikes but everything to gain from the improved performance of our ports industry, which the ending of this scheme will bring about.
      The reason we want to end this scheme is to create a better future for those living in and around dock areas. We want to ensure that investment in port areas is not discouraged and that new job-creating investment in storage, manufacturing and transport can take place. At present, the scheme damages not only the ports but the prospects of the communities around those ports. Above all, we want to achieve a better future for our ports. We want the present scheme ports to be able to compete better with ports outside the scheme and continental ports that have taken too much of our trade in the past. Our aim is that British ports can take tomorrow's opportunities in the new position created by the single European market.
      We should be clear: unless ports succeed in competing, no dock labour scheme—past, present or future—will prevent the decline of those ports. That is the lesson of the scheme over the past 30 or 40 years. There is no reason why our ports should not succeed, but they will not succeed if they are held back by all the restrictions of the present dock labour scheme. For that reason, we want to see the scheme go. It has far outlived any purpose that it might have had.
      The Bill is of fundamental importance for the future of our ports industry. More than that, it will remove a major barrier to the expansion of business and employment in this country. I ask the support of the House for the abolition of the dock labour scheme.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps it will assist the House if I amplify the point that I made in response to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I remind the House that the Bill abolishes a scheme, and, for that reason, it is in order to debate what is to be abolished, and why it is to be abolished.
      8.38 pm
      Mr. Meacher: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) pointedly said, we have just listened to a lot of bluster and a good deal of abuse, but rather little about the Bill and the arguments in Committee. As we have learnt, the Secretary of State prefers to operate in that manner. It is extraordinary that he can say that nobody has defended the scheme. I can only suppose that he so infrequently attended the Committee's proceedings that he is unaware that my hon.

      1025
      Friends and I, in exhaustive detail, rejected many of the Tory attacks on the scheme as incorrect, misplaced and downright wrong-headed. I shall certainly, yet again, rebut several Tory charges tonight.
      We are coming to the end of the proceedings on the Bill. The most significant point that needs to be made at this stage is that the proceedings have been a farce. No other Bill in modern times has had such a history as this one. A White Paper was introduced on one day without consultation—the Secretary of State did not seem to understand the significance of that point—and the Bill was published the next day. The Second Reading was rushed through on the first permitted day thereafter. The Committee proceedings were started—unusually—only eight days later. After an indecently short interval of only 29 hours for an eight-clause Bill, the Committee proceedings were abruptly guillotined, and a 4 am sitting was needed even to reach 29 hours. The Report and Third Reading stages are now being dealt with a mere six days after the completion of the Committee proceedings.
      It is clear, and it has never been denied by Ministers, that the main reason for this precipitate pell-mell rush is that Ministers want the Bill on the statute book on the first day possible so that the port employers, who are at present prevented by law from taking on non-registered dock workers, will at the first possible moment be able to bring in workers from outside as blackleg labour to break a strike, if that is what occurs.
      Mr. David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Meacher: I will give way in a moment, but I want to finish this point.
      Frankly, the handling of the Bill has been a shameful abuse of the House. The Government have been far more concerned to secure the option of strike breaking, if it is needed, than they have ever been bothered seriously to debate the merits of the Bill.
      Mr. David Davis: Are not the hon. Gentleman's complaints somewhat undermined by his own statement, I believe in the initial stages of the Committee, that this is a single-clause Bill with seven contingent clauses? We were discussing, in effect, one clause for all that time.
      Mr. Meacher: If in the correct sense it is a single-clause Bill—it is a single issue Bill—and if we had very nearly completed the debate on that clause by the time that the guillotine was imposed, why did the Government impose the guillotine? If there were no other major issues left in the Bill, why did they impose the guillotine?
      We know that the Government did that because they were determined from the very first day—months ago—that they would have the Bill passed by about the end of June or the first week of July so that, if industrial action took place, the Government could allow employers to bring in blackleg labour. The Government had no interest in any serious discussion of the Bill in Parliament.
      Apart from the concertina-ed timetable, the Committee stage has been a farce, because the Government have clearly been determined from the outset not to accept a single amendment. I have never been involved in a Bill to which an amendment, however minor, was not seriously considered. Indeed, much of the time they have given the impression that they were not even listening. We have been
      1026
      largely engaging in a dialogue of the deaf. The Ministers have simply been going through the motions and paying no serious attention to the Opposition's arguments.
      None of the central contentions that we made on Second Reading and in Committee has received an answer, convincing or otherwise, from the Government. We never had any response to our central argument. Everything that the Secretary of State has said tonight shows that he was not listening. We never had any answer to the central argument that most European countries, and indeed many non-European countries, operate dock labour schemes, which, through a variety of structures, all provide for the direct involvement of a trade union and dock workers in matters of recruitment, training, welfare, medical services and redundancy. We have never had an answer to the obvious question: if the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium can have successful and efficient dock systems, why cannot we? There is complete silence; we have never had an answer to that question. If those countries can run successful systems with dock labour schemes, why cannot we?
      We made the essential point that competitor countries regard their ports as part of the basic national infrastructure. Their ports receive heavy Government subsidies. The Department of Transport estimates that port costs for conventional deep-sea freight are typically 60 to 100 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom than at continental ports. That is because, as the British port authorities have estimated, port subsidies in the rest of the EEC amount to about £200 million a year. That is why British ports are not as competitive as they could be. It has nothing to do with the dock labour scheme.
      However, when we pointed that out to Ministers, all they would say was that they were seeking to get agreement through the EEC to reduce port subsidies. They ignored the effective point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in Committee that, when the issue is nuclear weapons, this Thatcherite Government demand to negotiate from strength but, when it comes to port subsidies, they are content to negotiate from a position of weakness. Their real concern is not to cut port subsidies, but to hammer the British dock worker. If only we had a Government who valued and trained their work force in the docks instead of regarding them as the enemy within.
      Mr. Tim Janman: If I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is trying to make the point that the existence of the dock labour scheme and its abolition are completely irrelevant to international competitiveness, vis-a-vis the docks' competitors in Europe. If that is so, why is it that, in the short time since the Government announced their intention to abolish the scheme, one major timber importer, who is currently importing timber from the far east into Europe via Rotterdam, has already contacted the chief executive of the port of Tilbury to say that he will be interested, once the scheme has gone, in bringing those imports into Europe through Tilbury rather than through Rotterdam?
      Mr. Meacher: After the results of the county council elections, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman will certainly be leaving us next time, so we are always glad to hear his valedictory. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why Tilbury has done so exceedingly well while being a scheme port. Tilbury has been extremely successful. It is

      1027
      well managed, it has an excellent dock work force, its profits have substantially increased over previous years and its productivity has increased as fast as anywhere. I doubt whether ships are turned round faster anywhere in Europe than they are at Tilbury, and that is while there is still a dock labour scheme.
      We never had an answer to our key contention: if the dock labour scheme so inhibits efficiency and modernisation, why is it that productivity in scheme ports has been every bit as high as that of any non-scheme port? In 1965, scheme ports handled 261 million tonnes, with 65,000 registered dock workers. In 1986, they handled 308 million tonnes, with 10,400 dock workers, that is a 730 per cent. increase in productivity in terms of volume per worker in 20 years. We would be glad if the Secretary of State could tell us of any other industry that could match an increase in productivity of 730 per cent. in 20 years.
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is simply taking credit for the job losses in the scheme ports. He has raised the question of productivity and Tilbury, but will he now explain to the House why the Department of Transport's survey, which was published only this month, shows that Tilbury and Southampton are charging nearly 30 and 40 per cent. more respectively than non-scheme Felixstowe for handling the same container cargo?
      Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should ask the management, because, if that is a management policy, it is certainly consistent with a great deal of success at Tilbury. Tilbury has probably been the most successful port in our country, despite the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who represents either it or an adjoining constituency, running it down. If it is its management's decision to price at that level, it has not prevented that port's considerable success and rising profits.
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should remind us how much public money has gone to the Port of London Authority, and therefore to Tilbury, over the years. He is making a point about Tilbury, so will he remind us of that position?
      Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for providing that money. I take it that he is not asking whether it can be justified. He did it, and we are perfectly well aware why he did it. London and Liverpool were in peculiarly difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was a Minister responsible for transport in 1980, came to the House with a Bill significantly to increase subsidies, partly to take account of difficult trading conditions and partly to bring about redundancies with proper compensation. When this happens in the private sector, the right hon. Gentleman gives us a lesson about successive productivity. When it happens in the public sector, we are told that it is all a matter of redundancies. This must apply both ways. There have been considerable reductions in the number of dock workers as a result of voluntary severance, and there has been a huge increase in productivity.
      Despite our exchanges across the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State has not answered my central question: which other industry has matched the productivity of the scheme ports? He cannot answer that question.
      Mr. Fowler: Of course I can. The non-scheme ports have far exceeded the productivity of scheme ports. That is a matter of fact.
      Mr. Meacher: That is the point that I was coming to, and it is not true. That is precisely the kind of answer that we have received from Ministers throughout the Committee stage and it demonstrates my point. Ministers simply do not listen. They do not provide evidence or arguments. They simply make assertions and when we check the facts we discover that those assertions are not justified.
      In 1987, the last year for which complete figures are available, each scheme-port docker moved on average 13,346 tonnes of cargo, while each non-scheme port docker moved on average 13,655 tonnes, almost exactly the same amount. That minuscule difference has occurred despite the fact that non-scheme ports enjoy the huge advantage of geographically strategic locations on the east coast so that they can benefit fully from the switch in Britain's trade over the past 15 years to trade with the EEC. The Minister's arguments, statements or flourishes are simply not true. They cannot be validated.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State is trying to claim that more valuable cargoes came through specific ports. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will consider the fact that, historically, certain cargoes came through certain ports. For example, Dundee was a jute centre. Jute is not as valuable an import as advanced technological imports such as computers or video recorders. The Secretary of State's case does not stand up. He obviously does not accept that Tilbury has been a successful port.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has provided a convincing answer to a point which the Secretary of State was trying to make from a sedentary position. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will develop his point if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Secretary of State should accept that Tilbury has been one of the most successful ports. It is remarkable that, because it is a scheme port, the Secretary of State will not say that it has been such a profound success.
      Mr. David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
      Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way. I have given way to both hon. Members and I will not give way to them again.
      Mr. Fowler rose—
      Mr. Meacher: I think that the Secretary of State is abusing his position. He has already intervened three times.
      We have not received an answer to our central contention that the abolition of the dock labour scheme will lead to the return of casualisation and a general worsening of the terms and conditions of dock workers. The Secretary of State repeated tonight what the Government have said endlessly throughout the Committee stage, that 90 per cent. of employers have issued a press release with a wonderful rhetorical flourish

      1029
      claiming that there would be no return to casual labour. That was about as convincing as Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and saying, "Peace in our time."
      The Secretary of State must be deaf or obtuse. He is not responding to our arguments. In Devlin 2 in 1970, the employers made the same promise that they have made today. Within 18 months of that statement, after the collapse of two companies, the employers jerked back into life the temporary unattached register—in other words, they reintroduced casualisation.
      The Government have not responded to the fact that we pointed out that Mr. Peter de Savary, who is one of the big port employers, has made public his intention to use casual labour for his new terminal on the Isle of Grain. The Secretary of State may screw up his face because this is a bit embarrassing. Mr. de Savary has said that, and if Mr. de Savary has said it, I for one believe him. We have had no ministerial reply or comment on that observation.
      There has also been a deafening silence from Ministers on another point. In an industry in which traffic constantly fluctuates, the employers' obvious objective is to reduce to a core labour force and employ the remainder on a casual basis. It is absolutely manifest that that is what they intend to do. Ministers and the Secretary of State have simply said that casualisation hardly exists in non-scheme ports. Not even that is correct, because it exists at a level of about 6 per cent.
      The Secretary of State argued again tonight that the same conditions will apply after the abolition of the scheme. However, that ignores the crucial point which we continue to make—that the dock labour scheme provides a marker for proper standards. Once the scheme has disappeared and as new cowboy operators enter the industry, commercial market pressures will drive down standards in the absence of a statutory framework. We have had no reply to that argument. The port industry will be the latest in a long line of industries in which Government deregulation of the labour market has led to a levelling down of standards, not a levelling up. There is already pertinent evidence that that will happen.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about the buses?
      Mr. Meacher: The resident buffoon from the Committee, who I see has been let out for the day, has made a very unwise comparison with the buses. The experience with the buses illustrates well the kind of thing that is likely to happen in the dock industry. It has experienced a worsening of standards and labour conditions and a reduction in routes.
      Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Meacher: No. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I have replied to him.
      Two weeks ago, Mr. Nicholas Finney, the director of the port employers, called for
      "the integration and assimilation of registered dock workers into the rest of the port employers' work forces."
      What lies behind those weasel words is revealed by the port employers' current treatment of their workers who are not protected by the scheme. Therefore, proposals relating to non-registered workers at Swansea, recently put forward by the Associated British Ports, call for a reduction in engineering staff from 68 to 16, a cut of more than three quarters. Those staff are to be replaced by contractors. That is the latest in a long line of job cuts made by ABP since its privatisation six or seven years ago.
      1030
      That shows that, with the dock labour scheme gone, registered dock workers will be, to use Mr. Finney's words, assimilated and integrated right out of their jobs, with casualisation no doubt disguised as contracting out. The port employers have refused to respond to any of those concerns. Indeed, they have taken the opportunity to scrap existing national negotiating machinery that has been in place since 1920—27 years before the introduction of the dock labour scheme. Nothing could make the employers' intentions clearer.
      We do not need to make predictions. I have already drawn attention to a new contract of employment. Again, the Secretary of State has completely ignored the evidence. I shall be glad to pass the contract on to him. It is dated 27 April, three weeks after the abolition of this scheme was announced and two months before it could be abolished. It is a contract from one port employer, Mersey Container Terminals Ltd. Contrary to the smooth assurances that we have heard again tonight about the easy transition to local collective bargaining, the contract makes it clear that there will be no collective bargaining, national or local, and that any dock worker who does not sign an individualised contract of employment, drawn up by the employer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, will simply be sacked.
      That is the position facing dock workers. So much for the Government's assurances. Like the employers' assurances about casualisation, they are simply not worth the paper they are written on.
      Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Gentleman can either plead his case because of casualisation or tell the House, as he has just done, that those employees are being asked to sign a contract of employment. A contract of employment is designed so that an employee has a stated term of contract employment. Therefore, that cannot be casualisation.
      Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has just joined the debates today, seems to understand so little and totally misunderstands the point that I was making. I can give him only the arguments, not the ability to comprehend them. All I was saying was that there is a contract of employment which an employee can either sign or not sign, but if he did not he would be sacked. That is not exactly the local collective bargaining which the Secretary of State said would be the basis on which the ports industry would be run from now on.
      The Bill is fundamentally about the essence of the Government's opposition to the scheme and their objection to joint decision making and their hostility to the 50:50 employer-trade union representation on the dock labour boards. They repudiate any limits to management's so-called rights to manage absolutely, and tell workers what they are to do. These themes run throughout their critique of the scheme. In that respect, the dock labour scheme is perhaps the nearest we have in this country to industrial democracy and worker participation. That is why the Government hate it so much. The Government call it blocking; we call it co-operation.
      Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
      Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
      It is an instance of workers taking responsibility, and that is why it is anathema to the Government.
      Mr. Riddick rose—
      Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a speech later, but I am now drawing to a close.
      For several years, in cahoots with the employers, the Government have planned and plotted the destruction of the scheme. It is becoming clearer by the day why they finally pulled the trigger six weeks ago. Ministers have never denied the scenario first made public by the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" on 12 October last year. It was then stated that abolition would be saved for what was called a "political rainy day".
      I am sure that the Secretary of State will not like this because it is the truth which he has been trying to conceal from the nation ever since the announcement was made. The programme presenter continued:
      "Tory MPs and industry sources have suggested to Dispatches that should the Government get into serious difficulties, for example over the balance of payments, then they would use the repeal of the scheme to rally their supporters and public opinion against the unions."
      It was a cynical picture of industrial provocation for political ends, but that is exactly what has happened.
      It is ironic that, on the very day set by the Government for the completion of the Bill's passage through the House, the bungling and mismanagement of the Government's economic policies have forced up intererst rates to 14 per cent., which will wrench up the retail prices index another notch, exacerbate the price-wage spiral and, eventually, worsen mortgage misery still further.
      If there is a fitting epitaph for this despicable, politically motivated little Bill, surely that is it. The Bill is as contemptible as the Chancellor's arrogance in the face of his own manifest failing—but, thank God, it will not be long before we are called on to reverse the destructiveness of both.
      9.4 pm
      Mr. John Townend: I rise with great pleasure to support the Third Reading of the Bill, whose enactment will be an important milestone for the once great port of Hull. I am privileged to represent the hinterland in the eastern suburbs of that port, and I have been fighting for the abolition of the dock labour scheme for many years—as chairman of the finance committee of the county borough of Hull, as leader of Humberside county council and as Member of Parliament for part of the area.
      When I was a boy, Hull was the third port of the greatest empire that the world has ever seen. Today it is not even in the top 10. Why? It is not because of lack of investment; there has been plenty of that. Nor is it because of lack of opportunity: as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, ports on the east coast have had their opportunities. There was enormous scope for expansion when we joined the Common Market, and it was inevitable that trade would move progressively from the Atlantic, the old Commonwealth and Liverpool to Hull and the Common Market. Hull was the gateway to the continent for the industrial heartland of Yorkshire and—with the opening of the M62—Lancashire. It should have had everything going for it: it should have become the Europort of Britain, but it did not.
      Which ports benefited? Felixstowe benefited. When I was a boy Felixstowe was a creek with an old wharf, in the middle of nowhere and with no communications. Why did Felixstowe get the trade? Because it was not a national
      1032
      dock labour scheme port and had excellent industrial relations. As a result, by 1987 it was working no less than 2·5 times as much tonnage as Hull, and last year its tonnage increased by another 24 per cent.
      It was not only Felixstowe that took Hull's trade. Hull has lost trade to dozens of private wharves that have sprung up along the Humber, the Ouse and the Trent. Today those private wharves work more tonnage than the once great port of Hull. It is a tragedy that from the pier in Hull the ships can be seen sailing past on their way to the private wharves. All that capital investment has gone to waste, and all those expensive facilities are unused.
      Why has the scheme had such a devastating effect on ports such as Hull? [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not."] It has. It cannot be denied that Hull has declined from being the third port to not being even in the top 10 and that has happened principally because of the monopoly power of the trade unions. The Transport and General Workers Union has abused that power, and the effect on trade has been devastating. Let me give three examples.
      Hull invested in a new container terminal, which is now lying idle because we could not reach an agreement with the dockers on reasonable levels of pay. There are three gantry cranes in the terminal. A similar gantry crane in Grimsby is manned by 12 dockers, but they man it only when there is a ship in. When there is not, they are put on to other work. I dare say that in Felixstowe or Rotterdam the manning would be much lower. But Hull, with three cranes, does not man them with 36 men; the union insisted on 66. What is worse, it insisted on 66 men not only when there is shipping but when there is not. The horror story does not end there. Even more diabolical is the fact that the union demanded tea breaks, lunch breaks, and permanent overtime for those 66 men—up to 6.30 pm every night even when there is no shipping. Who has heard of an industry where the workers are paid overtime for doing no work whatsoever?
      Opposition Members do not like listening to the facts. They do not like hearing what happens in the north of England and about why many of its industrial areas are being driven into the ground. I hope that when the Bill is passed, decent manning levels will be achieved and that Hull's container terminal will be reopened.
      At Christmas, North Sea Ferries wanted to bring in its last ferry on Christmas eve, unload it, and leave it in port until after the Christmas holiday. The dockers demanded payment not only for Christmas eve but for Christmas day, Boxing day and the bank holiday.
      Mr. Wareing: Just as the hon. Gentleman does.
      Mr. Townend: To put a little icing on the cake, the dockers also wanted a day off in lieu. The consequence was that that the ferry did not dock there at all.
      The practice of welting is still prevalent in Hull, whereby one half to two thirds of a gang work and the rest disappear off to the golf course, to run little businesses, or to drive taxis. That proves that manning levels are ridiculously high, which is why trade has been driven away by exorbitant costs and why there is no discipline in the work place or in industry generally. What other industry would allow workers who are supposed to be on the job to disappear?
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The House of Commons does.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, so that Conservative Members can moonlight in the City.
      Mr. Townend: Are the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman speaking for themselves or for their hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)?
      Not satisfied with its grip on the scheme ports over the years, the Transport and General Workers Union encouraged the last Labour Government to extend the scheme. Tonight, we heard that if Labour were by any chance re-elected they would extend it to inland ports, depots and containers. Thankfully, their re-election is most unlikely.
      One of the scheme's most despicable aspects is the power it gives registered dockers to steal other men's jobs by having tasks classified as registered dock work. In Hull, they succeeded in doing so in respect of the coopers and then tried to take over a local warehousing and groupage depot in Springfield way. Because the employers would not give way, the dockers forced the closure of that depot and many non-dockers lost their jobs. The same has been done in respect of riggers. North Sea Ferries was forced to allocate some riggers' jobs to dock workers. One rigging company in Hull that is not registered to employ registered dock workers, whose proprietor lives in my constituency, has for several years been prevented from recruiting more staff.
      It is not only Hull but the whole country that suffers. Millions of pounds of investment has been wasted, and millions of pounds of additional investment has been put into non-scheme ports to bypass scheme ports. Before the scheme, British ports—particularly the London docks—served as the entrepreneur of the world. Goods came here from all over the globe and were transhipped to Europe. All that trade has been lost to Rotterdam because of the scheme ports' appalling reputation for overmanning and high costs. That has cost our balance of payments billions of pounds, and we cannot afford that to happen any longer.
      The national dock labour scheme increases the cost both of importing and of exporting. It is a tax on every consumer in the country and a tax on British industrial exports.
      Mr. Wareing: As the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee, he would not have heard my point concerning Rotterdam. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it has a dock labour scheme? Does he realise also that 15 per cent. of the dock workers there are idle at any one time? My evidence for that is the comments of the personnel director of the port employers of Rotterdam.
      Mr. Townend: When I was in local government I went to Rotterdam to see what was done there and what I saw was amazing. There was no overmanning there. It did not have 66 men on three cranes when it should have had 12. It has a scheme, but it is nothing like ours. When I went there it had not had a strike for 15 years.
      The scheme is a tax on exports and imports that we can no longer afford and the Government's decision to abolish it was right. My only criticism is that the Government have left the abolition of one of the last pieces of the Socialist corporate state far too long. However, there is an old saying, "Better late than never".
      If there is a dock strike it will do untold damage to the scheme ports, but it will do even greater damage to the dockers themselves. If they strike after the Bill has gone
      1034
      through they will be liable to be dismissed and they will lose the equivalent of £35,000 each. I have far more confidence in the common sense of the British docker, particularly the Yorkshire docker, than Opposition Members.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. We were not allowed many hours to discuss the Bill in Committee, but we spent a lot of the time that we were allowed trying to get the Government Back Benchers to speak. However, they were effectively silenced by the Secretary of State. He was so shocked by the performance of his Ministers that he was not going to let his Back Benchers speak. The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is the deliberate intention to get the abolition of the scheme on the statute book so that, if the dockers go on strike, they will be sacked and lose all their entitlements. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that, because we have been anxiously asking the Secretary of State whether that was his intention.
      Mr. Townend: I did not say that that was the purpose of the Bill. I said that, if the dockers went on strike, they should be careful because they would put themselves in that position, and that is a fact. It is a good job that I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, because if I had been I could not have sat through its proceedings without refuting some of the rubbish that: I have heard tonight.
      No one can get away from the fact that the port of Hull has withered on the vine because of the national dock labour scheme. Not only dockers' jobs have been lost, but jobs in all the ancillary industries. That has been a major factor in the decline as an industrial centre of the area that I represent.
      Once we are given the freedom to compete on equal terms with Felixstowe and the wharves, I am convinced that management and men in the docks will get together, win back the trade and rebuild the prosperity of our once great city and that vine will flourish once more.
      9.17 pm
      Mr. Wareing: By some standards we have had a long debate on the Bill, but, as I have pointed out time and again, it was undoubtedly planned some time ago, not with any idea of improving the British economy but rather as one of the articles of faith that the Government decided that they had to keep with their crackpot friends in the Adam Smith Institute. That is the source of the Bill.
      It has been argued that the scheme ports have been inefficient in comparison with the non-scheme ports. Much has been made of the fact that over the past 30 or 40 years the pattern of trade with Britain has altered considerably, moving away from the Atlantic, which was the source of the prosperity of ports such as Liverpool and Glasgow, to Europe. There was bound to be a pull to ports in the south-east of Britain and that is the real factor behind the growth of Felixstowe. To some extent Felixstowe is to the Secretary of State for Employment what Luton Town is to the Minister for Sport; it is held up as a symbol that we should all copy—
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Wareing: My speech is hardly under way. If Conservative Members restrain themselves I shall allow them to intervene later.

      1035
      The port employers are undoubtedly prejudiced against the trade union movement being allowed a voice in determining the conditions of work in the docks. As I told the Committee, Mr. Keith Beckton—the personnel director of Tees and Hartlepool port authority—said that the port had not recruited since 1977 and would not do so until the scheme was abolished. That is why the average age of a registered dock worker increased from 42 in 1973 to 47 in 1988. The port employers are the managers; it is no use blaming the workers. The port employers organise the dock system, and on the whole this country has had rather poor management.
      The non-scheme ports have gained from location and, to some extent, from discrimination by Government and employers. The Government have no plans to restructure the port industry. They claim that the £4·6 million cost of the national dock labour scheme is a burden on the industry. If the Government were really interested in the burdens on our ports, they would be concerned about other matters such as the £28 million a year that the ports have to pay for lighthouse dues. Britain is the only country in the European Community that expects its port employers to pay lighthouse dues. It is also the only country that insists that port employers pay for the various navigational aids.
      The House should refuse the Bill a Third Reading because the Government have not done their homework; they have been concerned only with exercising their prejudice against the dock labour scheme and the trade union movement. They refer to the competitiveness of Rotterdam and Hamburg, but they should visit those ports, as I have visited Rotterdam, to find out why they are so successful. The Dutch ports, including Rotterdam, and many other European ports are municipally owned. The port of Rotterdam and its wharves are owned by Rotterdam city council. All the dredging is therefore the responsibility of that local authority. The navigational aids—incidentally, Rotterdam is 30 miles inland—are under the control of the local authority with financial assistance from the Dutch Government.
      That is the difference. The other EEC countries regard ports as part of the essential transport infrastructure and believe that there must be planning. However, planning is anathema to the Government. That is why they do not do their homework. If they did their homework, they might find that their ideological prejudices led to inconvenient answers. That is why we have been presented with a tinpot Bill instead of a measure that takes into account what is happening elsewhere in the EEC.
      I have spoken to Mr. Jansen, the assistant director of the Rotterdam port employers' association. He told me that the port employed 9,634 dock workers in 1987—about the total number of registered dock workers in this country. Just over 7,000 of those dock workers were directly employed, but that number did not allow the port of Rotterdam to operate efficiently.
      How, therefore, does the port manage to operate efficiently? It has what is called an employed labour pool, and 2,200, or 35 per cent., of Rotterdam dock workers are drawn from that pool. That assistant director of the Rotterdam port employers' association said to me, "You must realise, Mr. Wareing, that the trade of a port fluctuates, so there has to be a surplus of labour. Each
      1036
      Dutch port employer accepts that there needs to be a 7 per cent. surplus of labour." Therefore, 15 per cent. of the dock labour force in the port of Rotterdam is idle.
      What happens to those workers? The port employers do not make them redundant. They say that they will need trained dock workers in the future. The Dutch Government finance the training of the employed labour pool to the tune of 55 per cent. of the cost; the rest is met by the port employers. That does not happen only in Rotterdam.
      The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), is not with us now, but he told us earlier that a training levy would be a burden. We disputed that statement. We said that we regarded training as an investment. The Minister, however, said that he regarded the levy as a burden. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) then pointed out that the levy is the means whereby training can be given. If the absent Minister were here, I would tell him that in Hamburg 15 per cent. of the dock workers are drawn from a labour pool that is similar to the one in Rotterdam. The port users have to pay a levy for those who remain idle. The levy is a contribution towards their training and retraining. That ensures an efficient and competitive work force in Hamburg.
      Those two examples could be repeated many times over. The other members of the European Economic Community pay light dues and all the other levies. The Belgian Government have paid 70 per cent. of the cost of a new container terminal. They are not fussing. They do not have trivial prejudices. They are getting to the heart of the matter.
      Mr. Janman: Instead of going round Europe talking to the management of foreign ports, may I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the management of some of the British scheme ports, particularly Tilbury? If he does, he will learn that one of its biggest problems is the refusal of a number of people who work in that port to be retrained because they know that they have jobs for life. There is no incentive for them to accept retraining. Abolition of the scheme will lead to Tilbury improving its skill profile and its work force.
      Mr. Wareing: I am interested not only in Tilbury but in all the ports in the United Kingdom. I am not satisfied that the Government are sufficiently interested to ensure that there will be proper training. It is no use saying that people in the non-scheme ports receive training. Felixstowe has been mentioned. There may not be cowboy employers now, but they may exist as a result of the Bill. What will the Government do about them?
      The Secretary of State talked about casualisation. He believes the port employers who say that there will not be casualisation. There is 6 per cent. now, but he argues that it will not go much beyond 6 per cent. Perhaps he thinks that there is an inevitable minimum figure. Let us suppose that he is wrong, although I know that Ministers in the Thatcherite Government always go by the Alexander Solzhenitsyn maxim of, "We never make mistakes." Let us suppose that on this occasion they have made a mistake. Can the Secretary of State say what he will do if he is wrong?
      If casualisation rises to 10, 12 or 20 per cent., what action will the Secretary of State take? I am willing to give way if he wants to answer. Obviously he has not got an

      1037
      answer. Either he does not care or he does not know. He has no answer to the question because no one knows the answer. We do not know what the percentage of casualisation will be. Certainly the Minister does not know. We do not know whether we can trust what the port employers have told us. The Secretary of State has the opportunity to tell the House precisely what he will do if our worst fears are realised.
      If we allow chaos to develop in the docks because there is no planning, no scheme and no attempt to finance the expenditure that port employers are compelled to make, more and more of our trade will go to the continent. It is happening already. Ministers talk about Felixstowe but it is small beer in comparison with Rotterdam and Hamburg.
      In 1986 over 3 million tonnes of British exports to places outside the European Community went not through Felixstowe, Liverpool, Southampton or Hull, but through Rotterdam. One would have expected that exports to the United States would go through the ports on the west coast of Britain, but 341,000 tonnes went through Rotterdam. Over 4 million tonnes of exports to far eastern countries from Iraq to Japan went through Rotterdam. When we find that 1,899,100 tonnes of imports from the United States came not through Liverpool, Southampton or Felixstowe but through Rotterdam we realise what is happening.
      It is no use the Secretary of State nodding his head to show that he knows all this. His Bill is a mouse compared with the tremendous efforts and vision that are needed if our ports are to be competitive with those in the rest of the European Community.
      9.34 pm
      Mr. Tim Janman: Throughout the Second Reading debate, in Committee and on Report we have heard a great deal of speculation about the consequences of abolishing the scheme and about the opportunities for job creation and employment in the port industries.
      Initially, I wish to update the House on what has taken place in Tilbury between the Second Reading debate and the Third Reading debate tonight. I should like to introduce into the debate some facts and observations, in contrast to the theories that have been put forward by the Opposition. Already, at Tilbury one major operator has shown a great deal of interest in developing a 50-acre site roll-on/roll-off cargo handling facility at Tilbury for commercial vehicles. That operator identified his interest only after the abolition of the scheme had been announced.
      On Second Reading, I related the problem of a fruit cold store that an operator wished to set up in Tilbury. That enterprise and initiative was scuppered because of the 19th-century, Luddite attitude of a small number of shop stewards who insisted that, while the potential employers' drivers were driving the fruit from the store out and around the United Kingdom, registered dockers would stand and watch them loading it. I am pleased to tell the House that, as a result of the scheme being abolished, the entrepreneur who wanted to initiate that cold fruit store development has returned to Tilbury and is once again interested in pursuing that venture.
      I shall repeat for emphasis my remarks to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about a major timber importer who previously would not come to
      1038
      Tilbury or any other scheme port in the United Kingdom, but is now interested in moving from Rotterdam to Tilbury to import timber from the far east into Britain.
      I have given three specific examples from the past few weeks that are a clear measure of the great opportunities for Tilbury as a result of the abolition. In addition, many other companies are eager to initiate discussions with the management of the port to consider new ventures that can be started there. A conservative estimate is that over the next 12 to 18 months, after the scheme has been abolished, between 200 and 300 new jobs will be created because companies are satisfying the needs of their customers.
      Inevitably, in the short term there will be a number of redundancies in the port of Tilbury, where there is a surplus of at least 100 registered dockers. However, in 12 to 18 months 100 non-jobs will be eliminated and 200 to 300 real jobs will be created as a result of people meeting customers' needs in a free enterprise environment. That is a huge gain in the number of real jobs being created and a net gain in total jobs in the next 12 to 18 months. Throughout my 18 months in the House, that is exactly what I have said would happen, if the Government bit the bullet and abolished this appalling impediment to employment and job creation.
      s I said, there will be a number of redundancies at Tilbury but their terms will be very generous. When the redundancies have been made, the port will be in a very strong position to take advantage of the opportunities that will descend upon it, and the management of the port will be able to improve the skill and age profile of its work force.
      One of the biggest problems in improving the skills of the existing work force is that many of them—this is understandable particularly with the age profile that exists—are not interested in learning new tricks. There is no reason why they should put in the effort to learn them, because, irrespective of whether they volunteer or co-operate with management to learn new tricks, under the auspices of the scheme they have jobs for life. Hence, particularly among some of the more elderly employees in Tilbury, there is a resistance to retraining and, therefore, a resistance to enabling management to move with the times in terms of technology and so on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Do I gather that an Opposition Member wishes to intervene?
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Order.
      Mr. Janman: What is the problem?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Has something gone wrong?
      Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the Chair, not Opposition Members, kept order in the House. Labour Members become more clown-like as the days go by.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) please continue his speech?
      Mr. Janman: I move from the question of employment to the subject of—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Order.
      Mr. Janman: Does the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) wish to intervene? If not, perhaps he will remain silent.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was making a legitimate point of order, in that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was speaking not from his place but in the aisle or alleyway between the Government Benches.
      Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order raised with me. Perhaps the hon. Member for Thurrock will now continue with his speech.
      Mr. Janman: It is clear that the Labour party has moved into the alleyway of politics.
      I come to a more recent event appertaining to the Bill, and that is the ballot that has been held as a result of the Government deciding to abolish the scheme. In the ballot, 67 per cent. of those entitled to vote voted for strike action, but 33 per cent.—one third of those entitled to vote—said no to strike action, or certainly did not say yes; they abstained on the question.
      Why are Ron Todd and the Transport and General Workers Union refusing to give a breakdown of the figures port by port to the management of the individual ports? What do they have to hide? The answer is that, with a ratio such as I described, a number of ports did not vote to endorse strike action.
      Even if the courts decide, or have decided—I am somewhat out of date on the recent legal decision—that the wording of the ballot paper gave a legal endorsement for a strike, for those individual ports without a majority vote for strike action within those ports, or within the employer organisations across them, there would be no legal criterion for strike action. [Interruption.] One cannot have a national ballot and say that one is in dispute with one's employer, or claim that a particular set of dockers are in dispute with their employer, if the majority of dockers working for that employer have voted against strike action.
      Unless the TGWU is willing to give the figures, at least on an employer-by-employer, if not on a port-by-port, basis, one cannot with any certainty have a national strike and assume that in all instances there is majority support for strike action on an employer-by-employer basis. It is conceivable that those in many ports have said no to any suggestion that they are in dispute with their employer.
      In fact, as we know, there is no dispute with any employer. The ballot, the charade through which the trade union movement is going, is totally political. Indeed, I quote a Mr. Kevin Hussey, a shop steward in the port of Tilbury:
      "Of course you've got to defy the anti-trade union laws. This is a political strike. We've explained that to Todd. Todd knows that, but in fact whether we like it or not, they've as one paper put it, body swerved round it. But sooner or later we are going to be tied up with it."
      In other words, there are individuals working in some of our ports who, come what may, will try to initiate politically motivated strike action which is destined to harm the interests of the ports, the economy and the dockers they are supposed to represent.
      Why does the Labour party support strike action to keep a scheme that they would not bring back if, God forbid, it forms the next Government? Why does it support strike action that would impede job creation? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West has said consistently that, if strike action were taken, his party would have no choice but to support it.
      1040
      Why does the Labour party support strike action that will undermine the viability of 40 British ports? Why has it supported strike action to keep a scheme when, if anybody, with the exception of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, suggested applying it to any other major industry, they would be laughed out of court? People would not laugh the hon. Member for Oldham, West out of court, because they do not take his utterances seriously. It is interesting that in Committee he said:
      "I would expect a future Labour Government to extend those rights to other industries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1989; c. 67.]
      The hon. Gentleman says that at a time when even the Soviet Union is beginning to understand that a Stalinist and planned approach to the economy and to industries within it is not an intelligent, forward-looking or sensible way to approach the running of one's economy or to catalyse wealth or wealth creation.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West, even in the new revisionist period of the Labour party, is saying that we should take what everybody with an iota of common sense agrees has been bad for the docks and impose it upon other industries. He has not said which industries or how many, but he would like to impose it across the British economy. That is the implication of his remarks.
      The futile posturing of the Opposition is not worthy of a party that is supposed to be preparing for government. It will only encourage dockers to strike which will harm prospects for our ports, the country and most importantly for the dockers themselves. My message to my dockers is to keep working and help the port of Tilbury grasp its new opportunities and go from strength to strength. In doing that, they will have my full backing and I am sure they will have the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench.
      9.43 pm
      Mr. George Galloway: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) spoke with the authentic voice of the Tory Back-Bench backwoods engine which is driving the Government to this extraordinary path. The carefully contrived early-day motions and the student japes over the years have been determined to pick a fight with Britain's dockers and finally to bring them down. The ideological cave dwellers, of whom the hon. Member for Thurrock is a splendid example, are doing this country a gross disservice. All the dissembling in the world from the Ministers about the reasons behind the legislation and the extraordinary way it has been introduced will not hide the truth from the country.
      The Secretary of State affected to be greatly surprised that Opposition Members dwelt on the extraordinary and irregular way in which the issue has been brought before the House. I cannot believe that the Government are genuine in their puzzlement at that. The Bill was not mentioned in their manifesto or the Queen's Speech. A matter of months ago the Prime Minister said that the Government had no plans to introduce such a measure and only a few weeks before the White Paper was introduced, the Minister said that there were no plans to abolish the scheme. That was followed by a White Paper and, the next day, by the publication of the Bill. Either there was a lightning conversion by the Government to the Bill, or they were deceiving the House when they gave their answers on the previous occasions, solemn and otherwise, that I have mentioned. If the Government do not

      1041
      understand why that is important to parliamentary democracy and to those who care about it, they are not fit to be a Government.
      The Bill has been brought before us with unseemly haste and there has been an unseemly performance by Back Bench Conservative Members in the hours that I have spent listening to the debate today. They have carried out giggling, sneaky, public schoolboy japes, they have run around on the Back Benches whispering points to each other and have raced off to the Library to photocopy pieces of literature to pass among themselves.
      Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Galloway: I will give way in a moment.
      Conservative Back Bench Members have an unseemly and shabby desire to rubbish and eventually smash a section of the British work force that has served this country well. I represent many dockers because part of the port of Glasgow is in my constituency. In the past few weeks, I have spent much time in the company of dockers and their families. There are few less pleasant sights than to see well-upholstered, sleek and wealthy Conservative Members insulting a body of men who work hard for a living and who have done so for many centuries.
      Mr. Riddick: It is a little rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about the supposed misbehaviour of Conservative Members. Only 10 minutes ago, he and many of his hon. Friends were making a mountain out of a molehill about the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was simply wandering along the aisle. Labour Members even raised a point of order about it.
      Mr. Galloway: I shall not stoop to answer that intervention—
      Mr. Riddick: It is true.
      Mr. Galloway: It was, sadly, up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard.
      There are few less pleasant or edifying sights than people who would not last a day working in Britain's docks maligning and sneering at the dockers of this country, describing them as dodgers, bobbers, welters, work shy, strike-happy, lazy, good-for-nothing men. How many Conservative Members could exchange their lounge suits for a docker's jacket? How many of them could exchange their briefcases for a docker's hook? I see that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is giggling. He is one of the most unseemly examples of all, and his grandfather is turning in his grave at his performance.
      How many Conservative Members could live on a docker's wage? Some Conservative Members have said that dockers are well paid. That is rich coming from Members of Parliament who earn two, three or four times what a docker earns. It is little short of disgusting for Conservative Members with three, four, five or 10 directorships to malign dockers as they have tonight and on previous occasions.
      It is about time that those giggling public schoolboys got down from their ivory towers and went among dock workers and their families. There is a fear—perhaps the more civilised Conservative Members think it is an ill-founded fear—that the spectre of the old days is once again stalking the streets in our dock areas. Of course,
      1042
      Conservative Members may know nothing about those old days because that is not a part of our history that they care to study.
      In the old days, men underwent the indignity of queueing to catch the foreman's eye to get a day's work and a day's wages. I am talking about the old days when dockers fought each other outside the docks, so desperate were they for a day's work; the old days when the gaffer could go into a hostelry near the docks and find the gantry lined with whiskies for him so that he never had to buy a drink. Those whiskies had been put there by dockers who were desperate to win the favour of the man who gave them their daily bread. I am talking about the old days when matchboxes containing half-crowns were passed to the gaffers by desperate dockers who were looking for a day's work.
      The Minister says that the employers have given assurances that those old days will not recur, but it is not true that they have given such assurances. What is true is that they have press-released that they have no intention of returning to casualisation. If they really were intent on giving assurances, they would sit down with the dockers' trade union tomorrow and sign assurances to guarantee that there would be no return to casualisation or to those bad old days.
      I genuinely believe that the Government are seriously out of kilter with the developing public mood of the country. People understand that the Government are deliberately seeking a fight with the dockers. People understand that the Government have saved this up for a political rainy day and that this is that political rainy day. The summer of industrial discontent is already well under way. In all the by-elections, all the opinion polls and all the objective tests of public opinion, the Government can be seen to be losing their way rapidly. That is why they have decided that this is the time to pick a fight with the dockers.
      Some Conservative Members think that the dockers are a pushover. In the past few weeks I have spent some time taking the pulse of the determination of the dock workers in this country. If there is a dock strike—heaven knows, the dockers do not want it and the Labour party does not want it, not the brand new, policy review Labour party, although the Government and their backwoodsmen clearly do want it—the Government had better not rely on any lack of firmness or resolve on the part of the dockers to defend the rights that they have won over many decades of struggle.
      Neither should the Government underestimate the public sympathy that the dockers will be able to muster, contrary to what happened in industrial disputes in previous years. The dockers are a relatively small group of hard-working and patriotic men who have a strong sense of the dignity of labour—
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about ghosting and bobbing?
      Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman refers to ghosting and bobbing, but he is particularly well-upholstered. I should like to see him on a quayside with a docker's hook in his hand because he would not last half a day, never mind a day.
      Mr. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Galloway: I am finishing my speech now, so I shall not give way.

      1043
      The dockers are a group of hard-working, patriotic men with a strong sense of community, whose work the public will quickly come to value—especially if there is an industrial dispute—and which they will evaluate rather more highly than they do the mob of Conservative Back Benchers and Ministers who think that they are doing a wonderful thing in dishing the dockers this evening.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Bellingham: We have heard some colourful language and perhaps even some impressive rhetoric, but when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) talks about cave dwellers, his is forgetting that the neolithic tendency is on his Benches, from which we have not heard a single word about expansion, about growth or about the enhanced prospects of many dockers in many ports. We have not heard a single word about some of the east coast ports, which are now scheme ports, but which will go from strength to strength. The neolithic tendency and the cave dwellers are to be found on the Opposition side of the Chamber. If there was a Martian in the Gallery who had had the chance to look at the facts of the case and to hear the speeches made by Conservative and by Opposition Members, that Martian would be dumbfounded and thunderstruck by the attitude of Opposition Members.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead on one point, and that is that dockers are a noble band of people. I have the highest possible regard for the dockers in my constituency. However, many have said to me that, in their hearts, they knew that the scheme could not continue.
      I will confine most of my remarks to my experiences in King's Lynn. King's Lynn was once one of the foremost ports in the land. In the 16th century, it was ranked No. 2 in the country. It has obviously gone well down the chart. In 1970, there were 130 registered dock workers in King's Lynn, and there are now only 52. Their average age is well over 50. I do not believe that there has been an appointment for nearly 25 years.
      There is a tremendous amount of envy and resentment against registered dockers among other employees within the port community. Of course there is friendship, but their privileges are resented. When he came to my constituency, the Minister heard that management, middle management and many employees in the docks felt that the scheme had to go, and that, if King's Lynn is to compete against non-scheme ports in East Anglia and against Sutton Bridge, Fosdyke and a host of other non-scheme ports, it must have greater flexibility, move with the times, develop its hinterland, and go forwards rather than backwards.
      Every time I have been to the docks, I have had it in the neck time and again about when the Government will do something about the scheme. In spite of the scheme and the fact that King's Lynn has not been able to retain its competitive edge in so many ways, it has continued to increase cargoes and tonnages. It has gone from strength to strength. I wonder what the future will hold for King's Lynn when the Bill is on the statute book.
      During the past six months, there have been several beneficial announcements by the Government. The first
      1044
      was the electrification of the railway line from Cambridge to King's Lynn, with work commencing in August—a major investment in railways.
      Mr. Bermingham: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks about King's Lynn dockers, will he assure me on one small point? Many dockers are aged 50-plus. Can he guarantee that they will receive other work in the port facilities at King's Lynn? Does he think that £35,000 maximum compensation for somebody aged 55 who may never work again is fair or adequate?
      Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The chances of any dockers in King's Lynn losing their jobs are slim. As the hon. Member for Hillhead pointed out, only two people in King's Lynn docks earn more than registered dockers. The average wages of those dockers are only a little less than what hon. Members earn. That is all very well, but the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) must understand ther resentment and envy that builds up. He must understand also that many dockers have savings. A docker came to me the other day and asked for assistance in a property development. He was developing three flats in King's Lynn. I wished him well. I noted that he had done well and saved money. Good luck to him. He also said that, in his heart of hearts, he knew that the scheme could not continue.
      As I was saying, one of the beneficial points for King's Lynn was the Secretary of State for Transport's recent announcement of the electrificiation of the railway from Cambridge to King's Lynn. Only 10 days ago, there was an announcement of a massive boost to communications and building in East Anglia. For the first time, the Department of Transport has realised the need for two strategic dual carriageway links into Norfolk—the A47 and the A11. There will also be considerable dualling of the A17 and A10. If, at last, Norfolk is to be recognised as an expanding area that will retain its competitive edge and be able to compete after 1992, it must have good communications. It is a welcome feature that the docks and port in my constituency will benefit greatly from these improvements in communications.
      The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is also welcome because, inter alia, it allows for £4 million to be spent on a new riverside berth in King's Lynn. One of the problems at King's Lynn at present is that it is an old dock and the main facilities are contained by sluice gates. It is restricted in the size and length of vessel that it can take. The new riverside berth will allow it to take much longer and bigger vessels, which obviously will allow it to compete more successfully. However, last night a number of Opposition Members—those on the payroll vote and in the pay of the National Union of Mineworkers—very sadly decided to do all they possibly could to sabotage that Bill, which will create a large number of jobs in Immingham, Port Talbot and King's Lynn.
      Where are those same hon. Members tonight? We did not hear much last night about their consideration for or care about dockers and their jobs. All we heard was how they wanted to destroy a £40 million investment by Associated British Ports. Incidentally, ABP had to spend getting on for £500,000 in legal fees to surmount the archaic private Bill procedures in the House, and then, last night, 50-odd Opposition Members went out of their way to destroy that Bill. It was a shameful evening. It is

      1045
      especially shameful because those same Opposition Members are not here tonight when we are discussing a Bill and the tabled amendments, which perhaps would have assisted dockers and given them more money. Those Opposition Members are nowhere to be seen. That shows the sheer hyprocrisy of some Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Hillhead talked about cave dwellers. Those Opposition Members who came to the House to try to destroy a Bill, which means investment and more opportunities for dockers, and especially dockers in my constituency, are the real cave dwellers.
      I strongly believe that there are fortunes facing my constituency, because of the four key pillars that I have mentioned: railway electrification; improvements in roads, which give a massive boost to road communications, with millions of pounds being spent on roads to Norfolk; the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which means a massive new investment in King's Lynn; and, most crucially, this Bill, which will allow King's Lynn docks to move forward and to compete with the non-scheme ports. That is what people to whom I have been speaking have been asking for time and time again.
      When Opposition Members talk in terms of bringing back some form of structure that will recreate a dock labour mark 2 scheme, all I can say is that, if they come to my constituency during the next election and peddle such views, they will he treated with complete contempt by all the people who will benefit from the Bill—those who will get jobs and increased prospects. If they come to my constituency to peddle such views, it will be a millstone around their necks that they will regret. That is why I support the Third Reading.
      10.10 pm
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was telling us about the development at Tilbury. He told us that we should be concerned about the facts to do with Tilbury. He went on to tell us that, since the announcement of the Bill, a particular company had expressed an interest in investing.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Arthur Daley Ltd.
      Ms. Primarolo: Yes, Arthur Daley Ltd.
      I have copies of the "Tilbury News", which is the port of Tilbury's official newsletter. They contain reports about Tilbury before the proposals for this legislation. Along with the employers, the Government have perpetuated many myths and misrepresentations about what was happening in our ports prior to the White Paper and this Bill. I want to add a few more facts about Tilbury to those which the hon. Member for Thurrock chose to give us.
      The first Tilbury Port newsletter states that Tilbury's forest products facilities are being extended by an investment of £2·5 million for an expansion scheme which will bring the total investment in that port this year to £8 million. However, we have been told that scheme ports are starved of investment.
      The newsletter refers to the growth in grain importation and refers to Tilbury's grain terminal. It states that Tilbury has improved its ranking in the 1987–88 marketing year for wheat exports from sixth to third position with an increased market share from 6·5 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. It managed that despite the decrease in tonnage due to the poor United Kingdom harvest. Immingham is also a
      1046
      market leader, with 24 per cent., followed closely by Southampton at 17·5 per cent. Those two ports have also increased their market share.
      All three ports all are scheme ports. They are expanding and developing in investment and tonnage and they a re improving their market positions in this country in competing with non-scheme ports. The newsletter also gives details of a new timber terminal at Newport in south Wales which is a multi-million-pound development.
      The operations manager at Tilbury has said:
      "We have some super truck drivers, excellent supervisory staff, plenty of people who work above and beyond the call of duty and, geographically, we couldn't be better placed. The potential is tremendous."
      He was talking about dockers in the dock labour scheme. That does not develop the argument or prove the facts referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Primarolo: No, I will not give way. Many hon. Members want to speak and I am trying to make a reasonably short contribution. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak, he must take his turn.
      Turning to the dock labour scheme—
      Mr. Bennett: Who wrote the hon. Lady's speech?
      Ms. Primarolo: Actually, I am literate and I can write my own speeches.
      This Bill has been hallmarked by confrontation and by the Government's undemocratic behaviour. The White Paper was followed immediately by this Bill. It is clear that there has been collusion between the National Association of Port Employers, which has been clear and single-minded in its campaign to abolish the dock labour scheme, and the Government. They have combined to achieve that end. The employers' campaign has been pursued with the clear objective of provoking a national dock strike. It has done that by ending the scheme's severence pay to dock workers, through a series of provocative violations of the scheme and preparing secret plans for breaking a national strike. They are preparing to use the courts to declare the strike illegal. I do not believe that the Government's move to abolish the national dock labour scheme can be separated from the employers' campaign.
      The national dock labour scheme has been massively misrepresented in the media, by employers and by the Government. The employers have sought to project themselves as helpless victims with their hands tied behind their backs. The White Paper said that the scheme was an unfair monopoly. In fact, the scheme is run by a board on which employers and unions are equally represented and was established to defend workers against the blue-eyed system of casual labour. That was an honourable objective for such a scheme.
      The scheme is accused of making jobs for life and rendering the employers weak and powerless. It is truly incredible that the Government expect us to believe that the port employers are meek, shaking in their shoes, powerless and unable to run their business. Consideration of reports on the development and expansion of our ports shows that not to be the case.
      Dockers can be sacked for misconduct and not doing their jobs properly. In 15 years, the national work force within the scheme has reduced by 47,000. Dockers have a guaranteed minimum daily wage. What is wrong with that? Doctors do not stop being paid if they have no

      1047
      patients to see one day. Jounalists do not stop getting paid if their story is not published one day. Hon. Members do not stop getting paid if they are not literally resident in this Chamber for the entire period of the debates.
      Mr. Devlin rose—
      Ms. Primarolo: No, as I have already explained, I shall not give way.
      Most employees know that if they turn up for work they will get paid. Many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, are retained as parliamentary advisers for perhaps giving advice, and it ill behoves people to declare that others are not entitled to receive a daily minimum wage.
      Much has been made of the standby agreements. Employers preferred that arrangement to providing proper training and job security for dockers. Now they use the very mechanism which they put into place to blame the unions for what they call the costly, restrictive practices.
      Employers say that the scheme has driven port investment elsewhere. In fact, major investments have been announced for scheme ports such as Southampton, Bristol and London.
      Bristol is a scheme port. I can give details of the investment agreed while the dock labour scheme was still unthreatened because it was not listed in the Queen's Speech. There has been a £25 million commitment for investment—not a promise or indication of interest, but a legal commitment—by Redland Plaster Board. There has been a £6 million investment by Carrefour Cement and a £5 million investment committed by a scrap metal dealer. The city council is committed to a £47 million programme of investment. Like many other scheme ports, Bristol is hardly starved of investment.
      The growth of non-scheme ports on the east coast reflects, among other things, the shift in trade to Europe. The need to become competitive and ready for the single market agreement in 1992 is another reason given for abolishing the scheme. However, as has already been stated, many European ports have job security arrangements which are similar to the dock labour scheme. In addition, they have the advantage of being regarded as part of the basic national infrastructure and are receiving heavy Government subsidies. According to the House of Commons reference sheet, the European ports receive approximately £200 million a year in subsidy. That is hardly a small figure.
      Employers are promising not to reintroduce casual labour, but in an industry in which traffic constantly fluctuates their clear objective is to reduce the labour force to a core and employ the remainder on a casual basis. That is the reason for all the fears and representations detailed by other speakers.
      In an industry in which all the economic pressures are towards casualisation, the dock labour scheme is, quite properly, a guarantee of job security. It is portrayed as an anachronism from the 1940s, but it is a necessary defence for dock workers. Dock workers are highly skilled. Part of their job involves taking care not to get in the way of cargo as it is being moved around. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but—like others who have spoken—I would
      1048
      not like to work on a dock. Skilled workers are needed to work with massive machinery and cope with moving large quantities of cargo if fatalities are to be prevented.
      Mr. William Cash: Artful dodgers.
      Ms. Primarolo: It is not a question of artful dodgers; I am talking about serious employment practices.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He is outside the Bar of the House.
      Ms. Primarolo: We want people to work in safe environments. Why has this legislation suddenly been rushed through without consultation, making sweeping changes and challenging people's livelihoods and their very lives? I believe that it is a cynical attempt to divert public opinion from the Government's problems—the National Health Service review, the poll tax, the balance of payments crisis, ever-rising interest rates and the complex problems developing in the housing market. If the scheme needs amending, why has that not been negotiated between the employers and the unions? Why is it necessary to use such a sledgehammer to crack such a small nut?
      The dock labour scheme is about employment rights, not about providing anachronistic protection for employers. It ill behoves any hon. Member to pass judgment and make hasty statements about circumstances of which they have no experience and no real knowledge. I ask them to look at what is going on in the scheme ports—to move away from the business interests that they seek to represent in the House, and to make a clear decision in favour of the dock industry's workers and its future.
      10.23 pm
      Mr. Tony Baldry: The special pleading by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was not very convincing. I have two interests in the debate. In the 1979 general election, I was the Conservative candidate for the Thurrock constituency, which I nursed for some three years, and during that time I got to know Tilbury docks and the Port of London Authority quite well; I am delighted that that constituency is now represented by my hon. Friend the present Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
      I must tell the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that his sense of trends is somewhat awry. In 1974 the Labour party had a 19,000 majority in Thurrock; by 1979 it had fallen to 6,000, and the 1983 Labour majority of 1,000 was turned into a Conservative majority of 1,000 in the last general election. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view, the trends suggest not only that my hon. Friend will not be defeated, but that he will increase his majority substantially.
      The other reason for my interest in the debate is that I represent part of the heartland of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and I both have a considerable interest in ensuring that companies in our constituencies can export their goods and get them to market without added costs being imposed as a result of restrictive practices such as the dock labour scheme. So while there are not many dockers in north Oxfordshire, many of the people in that area depend on the competitive viability of docks and dock schemes for their own economic success.
      I listened with interest to the speeches of Opposition Members, who were all heavy on rhetoric, but few of them

      1049
      sought to defend the scheme. That is hardly surprising, because it is indefensible. It is riddled with anomalies and has no social justification in modern industrial relations. It has also destroyed jobs.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who was so juvenile and derisory about the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and who is no longer in the Chamber, could have taken the opportunity presented by the debate to explain why the fish handling company in Aberdeen recently lost 100 jobs because it was no longer able to function as a result of the restrictions and restraints that the scheme imposed on it. It is scandalous and tragic that what was otherwise a viable company was forced into receivership by the straitjacket of the dock labour scheme.
      The scheme increases costs, hinders our country's competitive position, and distorts trading relations. It has not created more trade or additional jobs but has proved to be a monstrous system of restrictive practices that produced no benefits, no improvements in industrial relations and no enhancement of job security. The scheme led to substantial industrial unrest, with hundreds of days lost in strikes over its period of operation. The scheme fails by any criteria. I defy any Opposition Member to prove that it has encouraged employment. All the evidence is that it destroyed jobs. It has not increased the prosperity of scheme ports, and I defy any Opposition Member to pretend that it has.
      Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman makes rash statements that are not borne out by the facts. Although Conservative Members jibe at the port of Liverpool, it operates the best and most successful freeport in the country. It also provides for trading by small businesses and has brought about the transformation of the docks by attracting building investment. It is no use the hon. Gentleman arguing that the scheme is a disincentive. If he will visit that port, he will convince himself otherwise.
      Mr. Baldry: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not present at last night's debate on inner cities so that he could have given that glowing testimonial to the freeport status in Liverpool. However, that success has nothing to do with the dock labour scheme but owes much to the Government's initiatives in promoting inner cities.When we next discuss inner cities I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that opportunity to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department of Trade and Industry on their initiatives in promoting industry in Liverpool.
      Contrary to the suggestion matte by the hon. Member for Bristol, South all attempts to bring about changes to the dock labour scheme, or even to negotiate changes, have been frustrated by the Transport and General Workers Union and thwarted by individual dock labour boards, on which the trade unions effectively have a a veto.
      The scheme has led to some of the worst restrictive practices in British industry. There has been ghosting, bobbing and massive overmanning. I hope that every Conservative candidate in the European Parliamentary elections will read the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The hon. Gentleman presented the scheme as an example of industrial democracy and worker participation. If industrial democracy and worker participation, a la Vredeling, the fourth directive and other measures of which we hear from
      1050
      time to time from the European Commission, are now to be synonymous with the scheme, it is little wonder that there are many who are concerned to ensure that the social charter is kept in perspective and under control.
      The scheme and the attendant restrictive practices have led to substantially increased costs, which amount to about 20 per cent. They have led to a loss of business from scheme ports to non-scheme ports and from British ports to ports elsewhere in Europe.
      It is not surprising that the Bill is passing through the House. It is surprising only that it has taken so long for a Bill of this sort to appear before the House. When I was the parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, way back in 1979, I saw the constant haemorrhaging of work from the port of London to ports on the mainland of Europe.
      The loss of business from the scheme ports is clearly evidenced by the rise of the non-scheme ports such as Felixstowe. I hope that every member of the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions in ports such as Felixstowe will have his attention drawn to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Each Member must draw his own inference from it. I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that every worker who is not a docker in a scheme port is a blackleg worker. I hope that dockers in non-scheme ports will take that on board. It would seem that the Labour party is interested only in supporting an outdated scheme, whatever the cost.
      The Labour party's only defence is that in taking that stance it is the only bulwark and defence against casualisation. It may not have noticed that the world has moved on considerably since the mid and late 1940s. Employers need a steady labour force. Has any Opposition Member suggested tonight that in non-scheme ports there is casualisation and that dockers are treated badly, or not well, by their employers? Of course not. Dock work is skilled work and employers need a skilled and steady labour force. They will wish to maintain that labour Force and continue to train it after the end of the scheme. That is the attitude of employers in the present non-scheme ports.
      The United Kingdom, along with every country in Europe, faces the challenge of 1992 and the single market. Over the past couple of weeks we have seen something of the supposedly new face of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) was rather more realistic about that when he seemed to suggest that that had rather more to do with packaging than with substance. The suggestion is that the Labour party now wishes Britain to take advantage of the opportunities that the single market of 1992 might present. How does it expect Britain to do so—our companies to prosper and our businesses to trade at a competitive advantage—if we continue to shackle ourselves by restrictive, outdated, anomalous and historic relics of a byegone age, such as the dock labour scheme? It will be an indictment of the Labour party that it has sought so resolutely to defend the indefensible.
      The sooner the dock labour scheme is scrapped and all our ports are able to compete freely and properly, unshackled by the dock labour scheme, the better it will be for the heartland of England and for companies and firms in constituencies such as mine. We shall be able to maximise our competitive advantages and go forward. I hope that the Bill will become law as soon as possible.
      10.34 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for the well-known port of Banbury who has just spoken made a number of very inaccurate statements about the profitability of scheme ports. Like many other Conservative Members who have made similar statements—their only concern is to get rid of the dock labour scheme; they know very little about it, but it smacks of regulation and of anything else that prevents employers from doing what they will with their work force—he got his facts very badly wrong.
      I remind the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that the largest employer in the scheme ports is Associated British Ports. It owns Ayr, Barrow, Barry, Cardiff, Fleetwood, Garston, Goole, Grimsby, Hull, Immingham, King's Lynn, Lowestoft, Newport, Plymouth, Port Talbot, Silloth, Southampton, Swansea, Troon and the non-scheme ports of Colchester and Teignmouth. Associated British Ports is a growing and profitable company. It was privatised through the sale of 51 per cent. of its shares in February 1983. It reported profits of no less than £38 million in 1987, with ports contributing £19 million to those profits compared with £26 million in 1986—a 46 per cent. increase. In the first half of 1988, the company's profits rose by a further 59 per cent., to £21 million, the ports contributing £11 million.
      The scheme ports have been doing so well that the chairman of Associated British Ports, Sir Keith Stuart, earned £97,000 in 1987, an increase of 23 per cent. on 1986. When there is talk about dockers earning large amounts of money, I should like to know how many dockers got a 23 per cent. increase in 1987 compared with 1986.
      If the hon. Gentleman wants more evidence about the efficiency and profitability of the scheme ports, I suggest that he should listen not to me—he rarely does—but to what has been said by Ministers. An excellent reference paper, prepared by the Library, shows that, in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on 10 March 1988, the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "Despite the constraints, many scheme ports are profitable and, as I have already suggested, the industry has adjusted and responded successfully to enormous technological changes over the years, and that could not have been achieved without effective management."—[Official Report, 10 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 599.]
      Where, therefore, is the argument about managers not being able to manage? The facts are all here. We argue from the facts. Conservative Members argue from the depths of their ignorance and prejudice against the scheme. The political decision to abolish the dock labour scheme was sudden and traumatic. It was certainly taken without consultation and it was outside the normal parliamentary procedure.
      If the scheme is so bad, why has it survived for 40 years? Conservative Members say that the Opposition are not prepared to defend it. We have defended it all the way through. We defended it in Committee where we made quite plain the benefits that it brought to the industry, employers and dockers in terms of standards of welfare, training and pay and conditions generally. That is why Conservative Members dislike the scheme so much. It does a lot of good for dockers and the industry generally, so they want all forms of regulation to be abolished. That is their political objective. Why are they not honest and straightforward about it? Why do they not say, "That's why we don't like the scheme"? Instead of that, they denigrate it all the time.
      1052
      Not one word was said in Committee by any Minister about anything in the dock labour scheme being decent, despite the fact that it has survived for 40 years, including 10 years of Conservative Government since 1979. If the scheme was so bad, why did the Government do nothing about it before this? They had plenty of opportunities to do so. They did not say in their election manifestos of 1979, 1983 and 1987 that they intended to do away with the scheme. Of course they did not. Now we have this unseemly rush to get the Bill through and get the scheme abolished. It is deliberate and provocative. That is all I can say about Government action.
      I know what has been going on. I keep my eyes and ears open around this place. I have seen the lunchtime crowds standing by the Members' entrance, waiting for taxis. I have heard the exchanges—"Where are you going? I am going to such and such a place." I know that the employers have been laying on some very fancy, expensive lunches. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is not here at the moment, but I said it to him enough times in Committee for him to know what I will say. He has been very much in the van, making sure that people were feted with good food and excellent wine by the employers.
      Mr. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Banks: I will not give way because the Government have guillotined the Bill. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman says could frighten or intimidate me, as he knows. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to assist me, rather like the rope supporting a hanging man. I can do without that assistance.
      Mr. Bennett: I have a list.
      Mr. Banks: He has a list. No doubt he has a list of all the people who were going off for lunch—
      Mr. Bennett: It is a list of Labour Members.
      Mr. Banks: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman produced a letter allegedly written by Ron Todd, so I will not trust his list any more than I trusted some of the so-called facts that he put before the Committee.
      Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) should be given an opportunity to defend himself, because he was one of the recipients of these lunches.
      Mr. Banks: If that was a point or order, it can be dealt with by my hon. Friend when he speaks. [Interruption.] No. He is thinking deeply and hoping that, through a process of political osmosis, the information will seep through the Bench into his brain. No doubt he will be able to deal with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) when he makes his contribution.
      We know that the Government want a strike. We have said so all along. When this came up originally, we shouted out that the Government wanted a strike, that they needed a strike and that they were engineering a strike. We said that we did not want a strike. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said during his contribution that we do not want a strike, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) shouted, "We do." We challenged him at that very moment but he did not withdraw the comment, and he has not done so since.
      There has been a conspiracy between the employers and a conspiracy between the Government and the employers.

      1053
      Messenger boys have been sent backwards and forwards until the employers were able to put the steel into No. 10 by saying, "Yes, we are all ready to go, right hon. Lady." That is what happened. Conservative Members know that to be fact. They want a strike for a variety of economic and social reasons.
      The economy is in tatters and it would be useful to the statistics-gathering of the Government if they could write out the amount of imports that are flooding into the country, causing such an enormous balance of payments deficit on manufactured goods. It would take a while for that statistic to even itself out when the dispute ended. That is why they want a dispute. They want to use it in a Machiavellian way to divert the attention of the population. They desperately need a strike.
      If the Government force the dockers into a strike, I can assure the Secretary of State that we will be standing with the dockers because we know that a strike is wanted not by the dockers or by the unions, but only by the Government. If the Government force a strike on the dockers, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
      At various times in Committee and during the latter stages of the Bill, Ministers have said that plenty of
      1054
      assurances have been given by employers that there will be no return to casualisation. Frankly, we do not believe that. I would rather accept a steak and kidney pie from Dr. Crippen than an assurance from the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State believes that he is telling the truth, let him sit down with the union and the employers and give the union those assurances in writing. That is a reasonable suggestion, because, as I have said, the Secretary of State needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the jobs that he promised will be generated when the scheme is abolished and that there will be no casualisation. Those assurances need to be translated into something which we can get hold of and to which we can hold the Secretary of State if they are not realised.
      Having watched the way in which the conspiracy has worked and the way in which a cowboy charter for cowboy employers carried by a cowboy Government has rapidly moved towards the statute book, if there is a strike, I know that all my colleagues will stand proudly, shoulder to shoulder with the dockers in a strike which the dockers did not seek and do not want, and which the Government clearly want.
      10.46 pm
      Mr. David Davis: Having listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I am reminded of the legend of the day before the battle of Waterloo when the Duke of Wellington had to deal with a trooper who had been caught looting, an offence which carried a capital punishment. When he spoke to the trooper, the trooper put up such a good defence that the Duke of Wellington said, "This man knows how to defend the indefensible", and he made him a sergeant.
      Today, the Labour party has been trying to defend the indefensible and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might just aspire to becoming a lance-corporal.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I should be so lucky, dearie.
      Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman should be so lucky.
      The issues raised on Second Reading, in Committee and today, on Report, are singular in the extent to which they have not been addressed by the Labour party; we talk about disgraceful practices in the docks and we receive no response. We talk about bobbing and welting and all we get is bobbing and weaving from the Opposition; we talk about ghosting and we get gobbledegook; we talk about discipline and we get disingenuousness. The Opposition have not addressed the issues that we raised. They have put themselves in such a difficult position that they have contradicted themselves on the same day. Today they talked themselves into a corner on training. They talked about the dock labour scheme as a bastion of good training, yet not so long ago the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was saying that lack of training had caused ghosting. There have been similar inconsistencies throughout their arguments.
      It is not quite true that the Opposition entirely ignored the argument. To some extent they tried to imply that bad practices in the docks were rare, yet they never seriously addressed that argument because in one afternoon I was able to find 27 examples of bad practice in seven ports. They have not addressed the impact of that bad practice on costs, reliability and the standard of service in the ports, and as a result they have never properly addressed the impact of those bad practices on jobs in the ports and in the hinterland around the ports.
      I am not surprised that the Opposition do not accept the findings of an independent consultancy report that revealed that the abolition of the scheme would create 50,000 jobs. I understand that they would view that with some scepticism. I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the matter on Second Reading. I, too viewed the report with some scepticism, and on closer examination of it discovered that the effects of 1992 had been left out completely, so it would be more accurate to forecast that not 50,000 but 100,000 jobs would be created by the abolition of the scheme.
      Nor would I expect Opposition Members to listen to me. But I would expect the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to read Tribune, which wrote:
      "It is common knowledge in the shipping industry and among many registered dock workers that the dock work scheme, as applied in many excellent ports, was hastening their decline to the benefit of non-scheme ports. This has not helped the registered dock workers. For example, Transport and General Workers' Union members in non-scheme ports around Humberside are able year after year to earn much
      1056
      bigger wage packets than their local comrades in the scheme. Growing tonnages and growing incomes go to the smaller non-scheme ports."
      It went on to refer to the lack of innovation in the Labour party on this issue. But perhaps Labour Members do not believe Tribune. Let them look with their own eyes at the evidence of what has happened to Aberdeen or Grimsby fishing ports. I note that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not here today, and I am not surprised.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: He has bobbed off.
      Mr. Davis: Bobbed off, exactly.
      We have argued about geography and have been told that all the problems are due to changing patterns of trade, although Labour Members ignore the fact that Ipswich and Felixstowe are next door to one another and that the non-scheme tiny wharves on the tributaries of the Humber, in some of the most difficult places with all the disadvantages of geography, are now taking on more business than is the perfectly placed scheme port of Hull, representing a growth for those ports of from 15 to 21 per cent. of Humber traffic in five years.
      Nor do we expect Labour Members to look at ports that have lost business, not just to non-scheme ports—because it could be argued that that was due to a redistribution in British employment—but to ports abroad. Ipswich, Grangemouth, Hull and others have lost business abroad, a subject to which I shall return.
      Labour Members talk about themselves as coming from the party of the poor and the underprivileged. We do not expect them to worry about the fact that 100,000 jobs—not 9,000 privileges—hang on this decision. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said—and I agree with him—this scheme has been around for 40 years. When it was created, there was a good reason for it. It was designed to deal with the social injustices and economic inefficiencies of the casual system.
      I accept all of that, and in Committee I was impressed, if not by the argument then by the passion and commitment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has a family tradition of knowing quite bitterly about these matters for many years. The scheme was created out of the fear of casualism, and that fear has been carried down through families. But it was not created with the intention of developing it into what it is today. It is interesting to look back to the speeches that were made at the time, for example, by Ernest Bevin; and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is in his place, will no doubt recall them.
      I have a soft spot for Ernest Bevin, in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who is not in his place, about public schoolboys, because my school is named the Ernest Bevin comprehensive.
      Mr. Tony Banks: A very good school.
      Mr. Davis: It is indeed, as I hope I am demonstrating.
      Ernest Bevin made some impassioned pleas, in the House and before royal commissions, about how the docks should be organised. He said much with which I would agree, especially when he said, in effect, replying to questions about what might happen, "I no more support the idea of people being paid for doing nothing if they are

      1057
      employees than I do if they are employers and capitalists." He would today look with concern at what we have created in the dock labour scheme.
      The fear of casualism should disappear for two reasons. First, it should go because—the arguments have been deployed—of the capital intensity of the modern port and the type of work undertaken by the modern dock worker. The hon. Member for Garston made that point earlier today, and I thank him for doing so.
      There is another reason. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West conjured up images, out of a book, of the old days of the casual system. We have talked about the acceptability or otherwise of 6 per cent. casualism, but the people in that 6 per cent. are not suffering the casualism that people think about when they talk about the history of the scheme. It is different from what people fear.
      As hon. Members know, I have been antagonistic towards the scheme, but I accept that originally it was well intentioned. Therefore, how has it done so much damage? The answer is long and complex, but the key point is that it broke the link between the interests of the individual worker and the prosperity of the company for which he worked. It rendered that link unviable—
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Inoperative.
      Mr. Davis: That is a much better word. It sounds like something said by President Reagan or even President Nixon.
      Mr. Bennett: President Bennett.
      Mr. Davis: Yes.
      There is another aspect which Opposition Members talked about at some length and with a great deal of passion. In some ways, their argument was plausible. It is worth addressing the arguments about joint consultation because it sounds a good idea. I proposed to a Conservative party conference in 1973 that we should pass laws to enable worker participation, and I am still here.
      Mr. Bennett: Just.
      Mr. Davis: Yes, but perhaps that is a measure of something.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It is not a job for life.
      Mr. Davis: That is certainly true.
      It is worth examining how joint consultation has gone wrong in the docks. We have heard many arguments about an inordinately high proportion of people who have been dismissed for disciplinary reasons being subsequently reinstated by the local or national dock labour board. There was an argument that perhaps they were all innocent, but we dealt with that by pointing out that some of them had served time in prison for criminal offences which related directly to their work.
      We must ask how that comes about in a reasonable system. The problem is kicked up to the National Dock Labour Board which consists essentially of half union and half management representation. That means that the union has the ability to block a decision but not to change it. What happens then? Anybody who has been dismissed for a disciplinary offence is put on the temporarily unattached register and will receive fall-back pay of up to £200 a week. He will stay on the TUR until a decision is reached or until somebody has to pay him £25,000 to
      1058
      leave. That is what is meant by a job for life in this context. That is not how I think joint consultation should work, but that is what happens in the dock labour scheme.
      Another example is that of clock work definition. There have been many arguments about that issue as new business comes into the ports. I can cite examples in Ipswich, Grangemouth, Hull and so on. In the port of Ipswich there was some sea-dredged gravel to be handled. All that had to be done in the docks was for a button to be pressed on the bridge which led to automatic unloading. That was it. Yet the dockers of Ipswich insisted that that was their work. The matter went up to the National Dock Labour Board and stayed there. It was never solved. The result was that the person who was going to bring that work to Ipswich lost patience and went elsewhere. The same happened at Grangemouth and a number of other ports. That is how a perfectly plausible, perhaps Christian-sounding idea became a destroyer of jobs and a destroyer of discipline.
      We cannot afford such a scheme in our ports today. We are an island, so our entire industry depends on our ports. It is right for my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to speak in this debate because he has as much interest as we have in the matter. The issues are our ability to compete and jobs. Much has been made in this debate, and previously, about the fact that dock labour schemes exist in other countries. But international competitiveness has got to them too. Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain are all removing their dock labour schemes, and France is considering doing so at the moment and studying our experience. Those countries know that these schemes destroy jobs.
      The Labour party's attitude—and I admit that there are many hon. Members who are impassioned and convinced of their case—has, in general, been irresponsible and dangerous. The Labour party has learnt nothing in the past 10 years. It is ever generous with other people's money, ever defensive of the vocal vested interest over the public interest and always supports the plausible over the practical. Labour's policy review this week demonstrates that its new maxim is that politics is the art of the plausible. I am afraid that Labour Members are not plausible enough tonight.
      11.1 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Several hon. Members have already asked questions about the status of the Bill, which the Government should answer in this debate. I believe that the Bill is necessary and that to phase the scheme out and to create a competitive system, in which all ports can operate on an equal footing, is desirable. However, I am puzzled about the way in which the change has happened.
      The Government have, after all, been in office for 10 years. There have been suggestions tonight that there has been a sustained conspiracy between the Government and the port employers and that the abolition of the scheme was planned in advance. The way in which it happened does not square with that. John Turner, for example, the general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board, has been trying to persuade the Government to abolish the scheme for years and the Government told him to go away. It seems that the Government had no intention of removing the dock labour scheme, as has been claimed by those who are vigorously defending it up to the last minute, who

      1059
      suggest that the scheme should continue and who claim that it was no great obstacle to progress for the scheme ports.
      Now we hear a variety of arguments being trotted out—many of which I agree with—and evidence has been drawn up to suggest why the scheme should be changed. Yet until three months ago the Government were denying that evidence and saying that it was unnecessary, untrue and irrelevant. They told harbour board managers to go away and cope with the situation as it was because the Government were not going to change it. What happened? Suddenly, after 10 years, the Secretary of State for Employment came to the House, published a White Paper that day and a Bill the following day and forced the Bill through rapidly, with a guillotine. He is now anxious to get it on to the statute book.
      Unlike Labour Members, I will not speculate about the reason for that change. I want to hear from the Government the explanation about what happened and what were the factors involved because the British public are also entitled to know why there was such a dramatic change.
      The timing was certainly interesting. One argument that I have heard was that until that point the Government had felt that the scheme could wither on the vine because the number of workers had reduced to fewer than 10,000 and many arrangements being made in individual ports that were moderating and modifying the effects of the scheme, and allowing new investment to go ahead and new agreements to be reached with employees who were outside the scheme, even in scheme ports, thus effectively enabling progress to be made. However, if that was the case, one might assume that, having got that far, the Government might allow the withering on the vine to continue to its logical conclusion.
      I recall that the week of the announcement was the week in which the problems at Aberdeen came to a head and reached the national headlines. The Secretary of State knows that I wrote to him saying that the situation had reached such a pass that it was clear that if something did not happen quickly Aberdeen could lose for good the fish market that had operated in the city for 800 years. That was not an empty threat; it was clearly serious with devastating potential consequences for the whole economy of the city of Aberdeen.
      I wrote to the Secretary of State on the Monday. On Wednesday his Parliamentary Private Secretary asked me for a copy of the letter and the press release that had gone with it, and on Thursday the statement was made. I noticed that the Secretary of State was ready with a quotation from me to try to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who basically welcomed the statement.
      What I am saying is that things were happening, none of which by themselves could explain why the Government changed their mind and moved so quickly, although it is possible that the fact that those things accumulated was the determining factor.
      The problem is that the differential between scheme and non-scheme ports has definitely—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We can do without sub-committees being conducted while the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
      Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      It could easily be observed that investment and business was being diverted to scheme ports. Just to make it absolutely clear that I am not speaking for the general manager of the Aberden harbour board, I should say that on a previous occasion he tried to ensure that the development of Peterhead harbour was blocked. That was something that I opposed and resisted because I believed that Aberdeen harbour should not be allowed to prevent the development of its neighbour, which could benefit the whole of the regional economy. Indeed, I supported the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Developments) Order Confirmation Bill 1986.
      If Aberdeen fish market had closed, that would have caused considerable problems for the entire north-east fishing economy because Peterhead was congested and would not have been able to accommodate the whole of the Aberdeen fleet.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to give the impression that the problems in Aberdeen fish market in recent weeks have anything whatsoever to do with the dock work scheme. The problems arose because the fish landing company went bankrupt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—The good, honest business people in the fishing industry were not prepared to pay any more money. Landings had dropped because of EEC quotas. The hon. Gentleman must not mix up the two issues.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman must know that Aberdeen fish market's problems, which reached a peak in the past few weeks, date back several years. The circumstances that caused the development of Peterhead in the first place were the existence of the scheme and the restrictive practices operating in Aberdeen, which made the inshore fleet simply give up in disgust and move to a port where they were left with freedom to operate in a sensible and commercial way. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that, when the boats arrived on a congested day and there were not enough porters to unload them, after negotiation the crews were allowed to unload the boats, but they had to pay for the dock porters who were unloading other boats and, therefore, were paid twice. In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that boats choose to go to Peterhead where they are allowed to unload without having to pay for the privilege of so doing.
      Those anomalies have existed. There is a restrictive practice. In the long run, particularly when relatively small numbers of people are involved in terms of employment, the Labour party should look to the wider interests of people working in a port and see whether defending one group ultimately undermines the job prospects of a larger number.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Bruce: I am being got at from two sides. The debate has been going on for a considerable time. Many hon. Members have had a chance to speak. I am the only representative of my party who is present, and I should be allowed to speak in the debate. It will help the House to develop the argument.
      The argument in favour of abolishing the scheme is strong and justified, but it does not explain why things have changed and moved so quickly.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: In Weymouth, a registered dock port in my constituency, the fishermen have expanded their operations simply because, by tradition, they have not had to use registered dock workers. When the scheme was introduced for other types of cargoes in Weymouth, there were 130 dockers. When I was elected to represent the constituency, there were 24. We now have nine. Surely that shows that, if only we did not have such restrictions, we would see an expansion of employment such as that which occurred in the fishing industry in Weymouth. Jobs for life are clearly not correct.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces my own. Allowing every port to operate on a free and equal basis is ultimately in the best interests of all those who use and are involved in our ports. I am concerned to try to ensure that that is done quickly and reasonably and to try to probe the reason why the Government did not produce their arguments until very recently, and did so in such a hurry.
      It is interesting that, in a sense, being called late in the debate has given me the opportunity to watch the way in which the confrontation has developed. I was possibly privileged not to be on the Committee. To some extent, the hon. Members who were on the Committee have continued the debate. That tends to happen in the final stages of a Bill. It has become apparent that it is a rather old-fashioned confrontational issue in which the two main parties line up in their traditional ways to defend the relevant vested interests. Those who believe that Britain is about to revert to a two-party system in which we operate by confrontation between two power blocs would do well to examine the debate. In the past few years, people have forgotten how destructive that confrontation is.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The two-party debate in Committee occurred because the Liberal spokesman attended only six of our meetings and did not speak. He could have contributed.
      Mr. Bruce: I do not speak for my colleague in this context. However, my views on the issue are well known and were published before the Government made a statement of intention to publish the Bill. My colleagues and I have indicated support for the Bill, while supporting some attempts to amend it. That is perfectly reasonable, and I am explaining why it is important that people should carefully examine this litmus paper-type issue.
      We do not want two-party confrontation re-established in this country. 1 question the Government rather than speculate. It has been said that there is likely to be a strike, yet both sides are saying that they do not wish a strike to occur and that they will not be responsible for one.
      A strike in British ports over this issue would be an extremely unwise and foolish act. It would damage Britain's economic interest and influence abroad. It would be a strike that could not be won and one which—I believe that in its heart of hearts the Labour party knows this—would completely ruin the Labour party's attempts over the past two weeks to suggest that it has effectively been repackaged. It would remind the British people that it is a party that is the creature of the trade union movement and that, ultimately, when the trade unions get into a confrontation, the Labour party will always back them and give way. That is why the Labour party has been out of office for the past 10 years and why it will not find enough support to win office at the next general election.
      1062
      The Labour party should have the courage to say, "Look, we accept that the scheme was valid and that the reasons for the scheme were justified, but 40 years on, with the trends that have occurred, it is no longer a scheme that can be defended. There are wider interests of working people that should be protected and advanced. We in the Labour party have the courage to say that." I feel that the Labour party, at the very first test, has shown that the repackaged or remodelled Labour party has not the guts to do it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading we are required to address our remarks to the contents of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do that.
      Mr. Bruce: The contents of the Bill relate to the clock labour scheme which the Labour party is defending and is threatening to reintroduce. It is pertinent to say that I believe that the scheme should be phased out. The idea that it is likely to be introduced by any future Labour Government is deeply damaging, and the people of this country should take that point on board.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that over the past 10 years the Scottish ports have suffered much more from the effects of the cross-subsidisation scheme, popularly known as the grid system, than they have from the workings of the National Dock Labour Board. Is it not the case that, whereas 10 years ago about 75 per cent. of manufactured goods produced for export by Scottish firms left Scottish scheme ports, the figure today is about 23 per cent.? Let us have a little fair-mindedness from the Liberal spokesman.
      Mr. Bruce: That is a perfectly fair point, although it is rather wider than the scheme. I maintain that, first, Scotland in particular has suffered from the consequences of the grid scheme, the decline in manufacturing industry, which has weakened the Scottish economy generally, and the fact that our goods do not ship out direct from Scottish ports.
      Secondly, our ports are expanding, but, regrettably, much of the investment is to increase the flow of imports into the country, because the supply side of the economy is not strong enough to ensure that we have enough exports to enable us to pay our way. That, of course, stands as a criticism of the Government's own policy, because we have created not a miracle at the end of 10 years, but a scenario whereby we find that what were once industrial sites are now retail stores, which sell goods that we do not make in this country, but which are sucked in through the port schemes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters related to the Bill.
      Mr. Bruce: The point is that these goods are travelling through the scheme ports, and the Government's claim that the scheme will resolve the problems of the British ports and of British trade is not valid. Until we can ensure that the investment in the ports will ensure increased exports as well as increased imports, we shall not succeed in creating a strong and viable economy. I believe, therefore, that we need a much more fundamental strategy to use our ports more effectively to promote the supply

      1063
      side of our trade. The abolition of the scheme is a small and desirable step, but the Government would be wrong to assume that it will solve our trading problems.
      11.19 pm
      Mr. Loyden: In Committee Conservative Members tried to disguise the real effects of the Bill and they have tried to do that again tonight. In Committee, Conservative Members relied, as they have relied tonight, on producing slogans such as bobbing, welting and ghosting which they probably learned at the seminar organised by the central policies study group and the Tory party central committee. I understand that that seminar was called "I hate the dockers." To establish at least some credibility about the dock scheme, they have been taught not to discuss the scheme, but to rely on the slogans which date back, as far as I am aware, to a period long before the national dock labour scheme came into being.
      For some odd reason, the dockers have always been the Government's and the employers' aunt Sallies. That position has never changed. There has been no attempt by the Government to argue the case. In reality, there is no logic for what the Government are doing to the docks industry in the Bill.
      The docks industry in the pre-war period was, as everyone has recognised, chaotic. It had inhuman practices which brought dock workers down to the level of animals. I am surprised that we are being led to believe tonight that the ruthless employers who existed before the war, and the hyper-exploitation on the docks, have disappeared and no employer would try to act like that today.
      Since the Government came to power in 1979, it has been their central task to weaken the power of the trade union movement and to wipe away—if they possibly could—every agreement and protective right that has been established in this and any other industry. The fact is that the Tory party and the employers do not change. They are committed to and are part of the system which requires them to maximise profit at the expense of the employees. To do that, they must challenge the rights and negotiated agreements which have been established over generations by dock workers and their forefathers.
      At one time, 70 per cent. of dock workers in east London were in receipt of poor law relief. Some 40 per cent. of dockers in Liverpool were in the same position. Those two major ports brought massive profit and wealth to the nation. The ports of London and Liverpool were responsible for creating the wealth for the port transport industry at the time. The result of that wealth creation was that dockers and their families lived in poverty.
      The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) referred to the role of Ernie Bevin. Ernie Bevin had to go to the Shaw inquiry with examples of the meals that dock workers and their families were living on to prove that dockers and their families were living below the poverty level and that the quantity and quality of their food were endangering their health and that of their wives and children. The court accepted what he had to say. That is the background to the capitalist system and those such as the Tory party who operate it.
      A formidable trade union leader in the 1920s said that capitalism was like a tiger. He said that it was ruthless and pitiless to the weak, and where it sees weakness and
      1064
      disorganisation, it would exploit it to the maximum. The Government have exploited dock workers and their families for generations, year after year. It took the intervention of the state and, more importantly, the second world war, to change the minds, not of the employers, but of the Government, and to ensure that those practices ended as quickly as possible.
      The fears at that time were that conditions in the docks were so bad that further trouble was expected during the war. It was to the dock workers' credit that they froze their agreements during that time to play their part during the war and keep the ports running, as indeed they did. Their reward from the Government is the abolition of the scheme that took them out of that position and into one, not of privilege, because the Conservative party is the party of privilege, but one in which they had won the rights for which they fought so hard over the generations. The dock industry became a human industry, and we saw the end of the hyper-exploitation by the employers in the port transport industry.
      Conservative Members have clearly exposed their naked opposition to workers' rights. The Prime Minister has shown that in the past couple of weeks. When the statement was made about the possibility of harmonising social policy with Europe, she screamed out in her strident voice that any question of imposing workers' rights on this country would be opposed by her and the Government. That is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he must address his remarks to the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Loyden: The Conservative party has gone to such lengths when introducing this Bill. No argument or logic has come from Conservative Members. They did not even speak very much in Committee. The longest speech made was that of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), which was three and a half minutes. They made no attempt to argue the case and there is no doubt in my mind that, whether they liked it or not, they were acting on the say-so of the employer.
      The reason why Ministers were not prepared to move away from their briefs in Committee was that they did not want to allow their minds to enter into the arguments being advanced by the Opposition. That showed that they had no real understanding of the industry and were acting on behalf of the employers. Knowing what employers are like, it was natural that they would not want the scheme in the first place. It was foisted on them by legislation and they have opposed it and tried to get rid of it ever since. It took this Government, with the employers' collaboration, to abolish the scheme.
      The Conservatives have not taken one factor into account in the Bill: after abolition of the scheme there will be no scheme ports, but only non-scheme ports. Conservative Members will no longer be able to attempt to divide dock workers between scheme and non-scheme ports as they have done in the past. British ports will be united in their common industry.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and others have said, the non-scheme dock workers, who are also members of the Transport and General Workers Union, have, to a large extent, been sheltered by the scheme. Their conditions are there because the scheme is there. Once the scheme goes, you can bet

      1065
      your bottom dollar that the employers will move in as quickly as possible to begin attacking the conditions in the non-scheme ports.
      When there are no longer scheme and non-scheme ports, the dockers will have to unite to fight their employers and the Government if they are to retain their jobs and enjoy decent conditions. In a paradoxical way I almost welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides for that to happen. Conservative Members' speeches tonight and in Committee have been highlighted by their attempts to divide dock workers in scheme and non-scheme ports. The dock workers will readily see that if they are to establish a common framework they will have to rely on the strength of their trade union. That strength has prevailed for the past 47 years: the British trade union movement, which has survived even the attacks of Tory Governments, will be able to re-establish decent conditions in the ports under a future Labour Government who will understand how nonsensical it was for the present Government to introduce such legislation at such a time.
      11.31 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) represents the class-war attitudes of the 1920s and 1930s, and to a large extent sums up the attitudes of the real Labour party activists—hidden as they are by the new Kinnock realism and the soft red Labour rose.
      The truth is that Labour still believes in restriction, regulation and control. It does not believe in deregulation or in liberalism. In his speech the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) described employers in the free market as cowboys. Labour Members cannot bear for the hand of the state to be taken away and for people to be able to run their businesses honestly, in accordance with the customer's wishes and needs. I was interested to note that the hon. Gentleman would not give way when he was talking about buses. Since deregulation in 1985 there are 400 more bus operators in the country, and I suspect that the Bill will provide new opportunities for dock workers.
      I was also interested by what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who popped in, made his speech in order to get himself reselected—he is in danger of being deselected and replaced by the wife of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—and then popped out again. He said that my great-grandfather would be turning in his grave. Yes, he may be; but Tom Mann, when he led the 1889 dock strike 100 years ago, was fighting in entirely different conditions from those of today's dockers. The trouble with the Labour party is that it does not come up to date; it fights the old battles. We are concerned with ensuring that the battles of 1992 and the single European market are won, and we must do that be getting rid of the scheme that is blighting so many of our inner cities.
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Mr. Bennett: I am sorry, I will not give way. I have only nine minutes.
      The scheme is full of defects. In Glasgow, seven registered plus two non-registered dock workers are in attendance for the bulk coal vessels, with no function whatever. The same is true in Middlesbrough, Cardiff, Newport and various other ports all over the country.
      Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bennett: I am sorry; I have only nine minutes.
      There are plenty of examples of the abuses—ghosting, bobbing and welting—that have occurred under the dock labour scheme. We must lift the criminal law from employers so that no longer are 10 per cent. of dockers inactive—plus another 10 or 20 per cent. if the ghosters and bobbers are added.
      The annual report and accounts of the National Dock Labour Board for 1986 comments:
      "Definition of dock work issues continued to be a problem and 12 cases were dealt with during 1986. There is growing concern over the increasing number of non-Scheme projects which have been and are being developed, often in close proximity to existing Scheme ports. This has been particularly noticeable on the Ouse and Trent rivers, and in the vicinity of the Wash. In some cases, the National Board took the unusual step of expressing its concern to the local authorities which were involved in the planning applications."
      The board is in the business of stopping competition and of restriction. It even attempts to use planning laws to prevent legitimate competition. That is another reason why this rotten, lousy scheme must be abolished.
      Opposition Members commented on pay and said how poor are dock workers and that we would not work for the same low salaries. Some dockers receive larger salaries than Members of Parliament. There is no shortage of money in the docks. The average wage under the dock labour scheme is £347·57 per week. In Barry it is £588·37. That is hardly peanuts. At the last Labour party conference, the Leader of the Opposition said:
      "Ron Todd made the point with deadly accuracy just a couple of months ago when he asked: `What do you say to a docker who earns £400 per week, owns his home, a new car, a microwave and a video, as well as a small place near Marbella? You do not say,' said Ron, let me take you out of your misery, brother'."
      That is the reality in respect of dockers' earnings under the scheme. Let us hear no more nonsense about their poverty.
      We heard also from those hon. Members sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, who spoke about those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve as consultants—but without declaring that they receive payments from the Transport and General Workers Union.
      Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman maligns those of my hon. Friends who are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, as I am, and who do not receive any direct pay from their sponsor.
      Mr. Bennett: I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union ballot of its members secured 70 per cent. support for strike action, although the union will not publish figures for the individual ports. The ballot paper is headed, "Trade Dispute with your Employer", which is palpably untrue. It is a trade dispute arising from a decision of this House, so it is an attempt to oppose 1 he will of Parliament. The union is so scared that it was not prepared to describe the nature of the trade dispute in the ballot paper for its members to read. That is not surprising, because the TGWU's record is of changing its position every two or three days.
      The Bill is necessary because time and again the TGWU was asked to negotiate over the scheme but refused. On 16 April 1986, Mr. Nicholas Finney, director of the National Association of Port Employers, wrote to John Connolly,

      1067
      national secretary of the union's dock, waterways and fishing group, offering discussions. Mr. Connolly's reply of 21 April states:
      "In reply to your letter of 16 April 1986, I can advise you that, having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I see no point in having joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal."
      The TGWU has consistently taken the attitude that its members will strike if any attempt is made to end the scheme.
      During negotiations this year, the union issued a press statement on 18 April stating that
      "we demand that the National Association of Port Employers should meet us urgently in order to establish national conditions that are no less favourable than the current provisions."
      So it appears that it wants part of the scheme to be retained. In discussions between the unions and NAPE the following day, the association made a number of offers, including continuation of the pension fund, holiday entitlement, sick pay, basic working hours, and individual contracts. On that same day the TGWU stated:
      "We are not seeking to substitute for the statutory scheme another scheme no less favourable."
      Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all listening with fascination to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), but when he filibustered on the guillotine motion he read out all the correspondence that he is quoting this evening. Is it in order to read out the same letters a second time on Third Reading?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will realise that there are other hon. Members who have waited a long time to participate in the debate.
      Mr. Bennett: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely say that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is wrong. I did not read out during the debate on the guillotine motion the material that I have quoted this evening. If he reads Hansard, he will recognise that that is so.
      On 24 April, the TGWU were demanding of the port employers that they should have a scheme that would amount to a national scheme. How can the port employers, the Government or anyone else believe what the TGWU says when in five days it changes its position three times?
      The strike record in the scheme ports has been about five or six times as bad as that of the rest of British industry over the past 20 years. That is another reason why the scheme has outlived its usefulness. It is time to free the docks and the inner-city areas so that they can prepare for 1992. That will ensure that Britain can make the most use of the economic prosperity that the Government are bringing it.
      11.41 pm
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The debate has demonstrated the absurdity of the guillotine motion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with consummate ignorance of the problems of the Aberdeen fish market, which are extremely complex. It is ridiculous to suggest that the problems of a small part of a major port
      1068
      constitute a reason for introducing legislation that will affect thousands throughout the United Kingdom economy.
      My constitutents—I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to me because I am speaking of real people—are in limbo, including some who are fish market porters. The employing company—the Aberdeen Fish Landing Company—went out of existence. Those who worked for it found that they had no employer. Some have accepted redundancy pay of £25,000. Others believed—that was until the Minister for Public Transport spoke in Committee—that under the Bill they would receive £37,500. It appears from what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee that that sum will not be paid. I am talking of people whose lives are at stake. Let the House realise that £10,000 is a hell of a lot of money for these people, and that some of them will not work again. The Minister has not had the courtesy to reply to a letter that I wrote some time ago, and he failed to respond to my contribution to the guillotine motion. It seems that the promise given earlier today that I would receive a reply will not be honoured.
      When we are dealing with major issues of this sort we should not be proceeding under a guillotine, when the rights of hon. Members to represent their constituents are denied them in a draconian manner. Conservative Members who pretend that they speak for the rights of individuals should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for what has happened.
      I am extremely angry about the way in which the Bill has been handled. It was introduced with deceit, duplicity and dishonour. It was not mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto. It did not even warrant a mention in the Queen's Speech. We are not dealing with a minor industry or a minor change. A generation of practice is being changed. We are not dealing merely with the technicalities of ending a scheme, for we must be concerned with the future of the industry. If the National Association of Port Employers happens to be listening, or if it happens to read the report of my speech in Hansard, I repeat what I put to it earlier. If it does not handle properly the changes that are set out in the Bill, it will be landing itself in a great deal of industrial relations trouble for many generations to come.
      There are those who believe that it will be possible to abandon the scheme along with national negotiations, training schemes and medical facilities. We do not even know what will happen to pensions. It is thought that this can be done port by port or on the basis of worst practices. Employers have said in Aberdeen and elsewhere, "We shall not return to casualisation. Instead, we shall have a core of permanent employees. As and when we need more men, we shall take them on. When we do not have work for them, we shall fire them." Is that not casualisation? Is that the way to create good industrial relations? The way that the Government are behaving is atrocious.
      There was a time when the Department of Employment was a Department of conciliation and good industrial relations practices. It sought to ensure that employers and employees worked together. There was a time when it tried to ensure that industrial relations were good enough to prevent industrial strife, not to provoke it. This Government are intent on provocation. It will do great damage to industry.
      We are told that 50,000 jobs will be created—that there will be a gigantic leap forward because the number of jobs

      1069
      will be doubled to 100,000. The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) said that even more than 100,000 jobs might be created. Whenever the fish marketing scheme has been discussed in Aberdeen we have put it to the employers that if they want to introduce changes they ought at least to offer the prospect of more employment, but they have absolutely refused to consider it. It is nonsense to believe that a scheme to generate 50,000 jobs will be successful when the Bill provides for massive redundancy payments. We do not create jobs by sacking people.
      The Government and the port employers will rue the day. I am sad about that and about the damage that it will do to the economy. I am even sadder about the damage that it will do to individuals. The greatest sadness of all is that the Secretary of State for Employment has disgraced the position that he holds. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
      11.46 pm
      Mr. Strang: During the seven weeks or so that have elapsed since the Government announced that they intended to abolish the dock labour scheme we have been waiting for an answer to the questions why the Government did not announce in the Queen's Speech their intention to abolish the scheme and why they have suddenly decided to introduce this Bill. No Labour Member relishes the prospect of a national dock strike.
      It was misleading of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to suggest that the Transport and General Workers Union intends to vote against the abolition of the scheme. At the meeting with the employers on 18 April the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union made it clear that the union would not seek to oppose the legislation currently going through Parliament. He said:
      "We will be opposing the Dock Work Bill using the normal Parliamentary channels."
      He then went on to ask legitimate questions that we asked in Committee and which have been asked again today about what is to replace the scheme. For example, he asked:
      "How will you ensure the job security of dock workers?
      What arrangements will there he for medical and welfare facilities and training?
      Will the provisions of the Aldington-Jones Agreement, which is of course not a statutory provision but a collective agreement between the unions and employers, be affected?
      What will be the role of the National Joint Council for the port transport industry?"
      He received no answer to any of those questions. Neither the dockers nor the TGWU know what is in store for them. That is why we could be on the verge of a damaging trade dispute.
      The union wants to negotiate a national collective agreement to replace the dock labour scheme. We reject many of the arguments that have been advanced tonight. We reject the idea that investment has not been taking place in the scheme ports. Example after example has been given of the millions of pounds that are being invested. We reject the idea that there is low productivity in the scheme ports. The evidence has been given to the House.
      There has been a dramatic shift in Britain's trade. The enormous increase in the proportion of our trade with mainland Europe has increased the growth of trade in ports on the east coast of the country.
      Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Strang: No, because I want the Minister to have time to reply.
      We have received no answer to these points. It is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that the Government are going into this with open eyes. They are creating the conditions for a national dock strike.
      We hope that when the matter is resolved in the courts, as it will be shortly, the Government will intervene and at the last minute will invite the employers and the unions to the Department of Employment, sit down with them and discuss what progress can be made in negotiating arrangements to replace the scheme.
      There is no need for a strike. No one suggests that a strike will stop the passage of the legislation. The ball is in the Government's court. They can accept the consequences of their action and see a damaging strike that is not in the interests of the country, the port employers or of the dockers. That will happen if they go hell bent down the road that leads to confrontation. There is no need for that approach, but it has been endemic in everything that the Government have said since they started to enact the measure. We appeal to them even at this stage to think again. They should recognise that there has to be life after the passage of the legislation and that there should be constructive discussions to arrange for the future of the scheme ports.
      11.50 pm
      Mr. Cope: We have had another long debate on the Bill. It is drawing to a close but we have heard little new except the deep knowledge of the damage to their local ports from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) and others.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked a specific question about whether dockers in Aberdeen could get compensation in the particular circumstances of the fish dock in his constituency. Those who are registered dock workers when the scheme ends, and who become redundant, will get the full money to which they are entitled under the scheme—up to £35,000 for 15 years' service. If the employers cannot or do not pay them, the Government will stand behind the scheme to make sure that they are paid.
      All the arguments from the Opposition today were familiar to those of us who were on the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) worked up wonderful indignation about the guillotine, as only he is capable of doing. Every hon. Member who was on the Committee knows that there was an almost audible sigh of relief from all sides when the guillotine came into effect. What is more, we never needed to sit late thereafter.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West said earlier in our debates, and repeated today, that this was essentially a one-clause Bill. That is not true. There are important provisions in the later clauses about what will happen after the scheme. The Bill implements a single clear idea. We believe that there should no longer be a special class of registered dock workers, with unique statutory provisions governing their employment. All workers in the docks, including those who were registered dock workers, should have the same rights and obligations as other employees of their companies and, for that matter, employees in other

      1071
      industries. We not only think that that is right for the sake of the dock companies and their other non-registered employees but we believe that it is in the interests of scheme ports and the areas around them. There is clear evidence that the scheme's unique statutory restrictions have held hack, and continue to hold back, the performance of scheme ports. There is no doubt that they are losing business and jobs to their competitors outside the scheme. That cannot be explained by the shift in the patterns of British trade.
      Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a crucial problem of the dock labour scheme has been the way that it has put up charges to shippers and that the success of the east coast ports has been due to the fact that they charge £2 per tonne for unloading? They are small ports. Large carriers are going into places such as Rotterdam where they pay £2 per tonne for trans-shipment into small ships which bring the products in through small east coast ports, thus avoiding the large ports such as Teesside in my constituency and Liverpool where they would have to pay £6, £8 or even £17 per tonne for unloading.
      Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend makes a shrewd point. It certainly cannot be said that the loss of business has anything to do with the shift of trade to the continent. The scheme ports on the south and east coasts managed a 26 per cent. increase in their trade since 1970, no doubt partly as a result of that shift in trade. The non-scheme ports on the south and east coasts increased their trade by 325 per cent. in the same period. It is also noticeable that Hull and Goole lost ground to the wharves on the Humber and the Trent and that the non-scheme ports on the west coast, Heysham and Holyhead, have grown, while Liverpool has continued to decline.
      The scheme's restrictions have proved extremely damaging, but they have also become unnecessary to provide reasonable terms and conditions for dock workers in those ports. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, technology, not the scheme, has tranformed the port industry. In the 1940s, before technology was introduced, it was a labour-intensive, low-skilled industry, prone to widespread casual work which was an extremely unpleasant practice. Today it is a highly mechanised industry which is handling more tonnage with one sixth of the labour force.
      Today's ports cannot operate without a well-trained permanent work force. Casual work has gone and the scheme is no longer required to prevent it. Those who have raised that spectre, along with other historical matters, do so only to frighten the dockers and other members of the unions. Ports outside the scheme demonstrate that the more modern and efficient they are, the more they rely on a modern, well-paid work force. That is a far better guarantee of good terms and conditions than the artificial, counter-productive controls of the scheme.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, West drew our attention to research by the centre for labour economics at the London School of Economics. I took the trouble to make inquiries and look it up. It showed why the scheme ports have lost ground. It revealed that the scheme's monopoly allowed the unions to resist the introduction of containerisation during the 1960s; to
      1072
      secure pay increase of about 35 per cent. in 1967 in exchange for the acceptance of new technology; and to refuse to accept lower manning levels, which were a natural consequence of new technology, until an alternative arrangement, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, was introduced in 1972. That is why the scheme ports have lost half their container trade in little more than 20 years. That trade could have offset at least some of the job losses which the report rightly attributes to the technological revolution which the industry has undergone.
      The scheme has defended indefensible working practices. It has produced the most extraordinary recruitment and disciplinary practices. It has led to inbuilt labour surpluses touching 18 per cent. in the past 10 years, which have damaged job creation and competitiveness immensely. All that has been underpinned by a statutory system of joint control which has functioned not to promote change in response to containerisation, for example, but first to block it and then to set an unacceptable price for it. The only way out is to abolish the scheme and to give the entire ports industry the same framework of employment law and free collective bargaining as everyone else.
      The Opposition have not defended the details of the scheme. On the contrary, at various times they have offered to alter them, unlike the TGWU, which always refused to discuss change until the moment we said we would abolish the scheme.
      But the Opposition have now said—or at least the hon. Member for Oldham, West has said—that they want to keep the scheme in place while the new controls are developed, with all the main restrictions of the present scheme, not only in the existing scheme ports but extended to all the other ports which have meanwhile flourished outside its grip. In particular, Labour Members also want to extend the statutory joint control which unions have used to block change in scheme ports, and they have even seen it as a model for other industries. That would be a recipe for disaster in British industry, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) correctly pointed out how old fashioned Labour party policy is—
      It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [8 May] , to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 163.

      Division No. 214]

      [12 midnight

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Allason, Rupert

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Amos, Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ashby, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Atkinson, David

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Baldry, Tony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brazier, Julian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bright, Graham

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Benyon, W.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      1073

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hind, Kenneth

      Burns, Simon

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Howard, Michael

      Butcher, John

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

      Butler, Chris

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Butterfill, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Irvine, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Chapman, Sydney

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Churchill, Mr

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Key, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lang, Ian

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Couchman, James

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Cran, James

      Lightbown, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Maclean, David

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

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Day, Stephen

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Devlin, Tim

      Mills, Iain

      Dicks, Terry

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Moate, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Durant, Tony

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fallon, Michael

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Nelson, Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Neubert, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Norris, Steve

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Franks, Cecil

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Freeman, Roger

      Page, Richard

      French, Douglas

      Paice, James

      Fry, Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Gale, Roger

      Patnick, Irvine

      Gardiner, George

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Pawsey, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Price, Sir David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Redwood, John

      Gow, Ian

      Renton, Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gregory, Conal

      Riddick, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Grist, Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hague, William

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Rost, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Ryder, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Hannam, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Harris, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hayward, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Heddle, John

      Speller, Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Squire, Robin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      1074

      Stern, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Waller, Gary

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Ward, John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sumberg, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Summerson, Hugo

      Watts, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wheeler, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wood, Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Trippier, David

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      NOES

      Allen, Graham

      Fisher, Mark

      Anderson, Donald

      Flynn, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foster, Derek

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fraser, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Galloway, George

      Barron, Kevin

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Battle, John

      George, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bell, Stuart

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

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

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gould, Bryan

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blair, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Blunkett, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Boateng, Paul

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boyes, Roland

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bradley, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Buckley, George J.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clay, Bob

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clelland, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cohen, Harry

      Lamond, James

      Coleman, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbett, Robin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lewis, Terry

      Cousins, Jim

      Litherland, Robert

      Cummings, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Doran, Frank

      McKeivey, William

      Douglas, Dick

      McNamara, Kevin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McWilliam, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Marek, Dr John

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Faulds, Andrew

      Meacher, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      1075

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Morley, Elliott

      Sheerman, Barry

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Brien, William

      Stott, Roger

      O'Neill, Martin

      Strang, Gavin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Vaz, Keith

      Parry, Robert

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      Radice, Giles

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Randall, Stuart

      Worthington, Tony

      Redmond, Martin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Robertson, George

      Rogers, Allan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Vehicle Emissions
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and his hon. Friends.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you and to my hon. Friend the Minister to call off this debate. It is an insult to Parliament, as you know, to have a discussion on what line the Government should take when they announced this morning what line they had decided to take. I appreciate the constraints of time, but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter earlier, and I advised him that it might be a suitable point to raise in the course of the debate. Doubtless the Minister is aware that the hon. Gentleman raised this point of order. I am powerless to change what is set down on the Order Paper.
12.12 am
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6529/89 on vehicle emissions; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from small cars, taking into account environmental effects, fuel economy and the needs of industry.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Bottomley: Withdraw what?
The Government believe that the right way forward is to support the Commission's most recent revised proposal for tighter standards for small cars in 1993. Much has happened since last November and it will be helpful to the House if I recount the developments.
This subject was considered by the House in November. Shortly afterwards, the Council of Ministers agreed a common position on the terms explained to the House during that debate. Under the co-operation procedure, the November agreement was re-submitted to the European Parliament for Second Reading. The European Parliament has a history of favouring higher standards and it soon became clear that there was a genuine possibility of an absolute majority of Members of the European Parliament supporting the rejection of the common position. That would have compelled the Council to act by unanimity to adopt a directive based on the common position.
In the past, the Commission has robustly defended the Council's position, with the result that Council agreements have been adopted as Community directives. The climate of opinion in the Commission on vehicle emissions has changed significantly since the beginning of this year, perhaps because of concern that the Parliament would vote for the outright rejection of the common position. The Commission attempted to pre-empt a rejecting vote by announcing before the plenary session of the European Parliament took place that it would substantially revise its proposal to be more in line with thinking in the Parliament. This move succeeded in deflecting the vote from a rejection to an amendment of the common position. It preserved the possibility of agreement in Council by qualified majority.
The outcome of all this is the revised proposal before the House today. Its central elements are: an advance from

1077
1993 to 1991 of the original stage II standards of 30 g/test for CO and 8 g/test HC+ NOx effectively supplanting stage I; the introduction of a stage, with tighter limits of 19 g/test CO and 5 g/test HC+ NOx, in 1993; the strengthening of the Commission's commitment to bring forward further proposals on the high-speed cycle; and the transformation of the proposed directive from an optional to a mandatory basis.
These are radical proposed changes. They pave the way for state of the art standards in Europe not only for small cars, which we are debating this evening, but for all sizes of car. There will be costs to the motorist and penalties on fuel economy.
The standards previously supported would have meant the need to fit simple catalysts to virtually all small cars while still allowing the development of fuel efficient technologies such as lean burn to continue.
Tighter standards mean lower emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen—also known as NOx—but the use of three-way catalysts can lead to increases in carbon dioxide emissions, because fuel economy is increased.
Mr. Richard Page: My hon. Friend has said that this is a proposal, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has said that the decision has already been made. Can my hon. Friend square that circle so that I can decide whether to stay for the debate or to go?
Mr. Bottomley: The Council of Ministers will meet on 8 June. The Government have announced that they intend to support the 1993 proposals—
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Without waiting for this debate.
Mr. Bottomley: —and to reject the 1991 interim stage—[Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announces what the Government's intention is and if my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) announces in a written answer this afternoon what the Government's intention is—[Interruption.]—and if I could finish my sentence and if my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) would contain himself for a moment, so that I can try to spell out the position clearly and make it possible for the Government and others to hear the views of other hon. Members—
Mr. Aitken: The Government have already decided.
Mr. Bottomley: What has been announced is the Government's intention; the decision will come from the Council of Ministers. To those who say that there is no point in staying for the debate, I say that that would be a loss to the debate.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I assure the Minister that on this matter I shall be strictly procedural. Do I understand from him that the news release of earlier today tells us that the Secretary of State announced—prior to the debate, perhaps by a few hours—what the Government's attitude will be at the Council of Ministers and that, while the House may accept the measure, it is a fact that the Secretary of State has announced his intention prior to the debate? In my recollection, that is a complete novelty because, although the Government's views are
1078
often expressed in a motion, they do not usually announce their intention until after the debate. Will the Minister confirm what I have said?
Mr. Bottomley: I would not dream of confirming what the hon. Gentleman has said. What the Government have said is what they intend to do and to support. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said last week when the Government made information available to Members as soon as possible, even before making announcements, it seems perfectly reasonable and to make sense to make the information available during the day better to inform those who are interested in the debate.
Mr. John Prescott: That is what the Minister's speech is supposed to be about.
Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will go back to his new year's resolution of three years ago and listen with his ears rather than his mouth, I will continue.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If my hon. Friend and the Government are persuaded by the arguments that are put forward tonight, will my hon. Friend explain the effect that will have?
Mr. Bottomley: The only arguments that are being put forward at the moment are mine. When I have listened to the other arguments—I do not have extra-sensory perception—
Mr. Budgen: What effect will it have?
Mr. Prescott: The Minister should listen to the question and then try to answer it.
Mr. Budgen: What effect will it have?
Mr. Bottomley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There are too many speeches going on.
Mr. Bottomley: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South.
Mr. Aitken: By his rather frivolous manner, my hon. Friend is making it clear that he has not understood the seriousness of the point he is making and the seriousness of the insult which, through my hon. Friend's lips, the Government are perpetrating. We are here to debate a serious issue, and we have amendments, views and ideas on it. Yet, before the debate, the Government announced their policy without listening to hon. Members' views. What is the purpose of the debate, and, specifically, will my hon. Friend answer my question? If he is convinced by any of the arguments that are put forward in the debate tonight, will he have any power to change the Government's policy from that which was so prematurely and insultingly announced without consulting the House earlier today?
Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister answer that question?
Mr. Bottomley: I inform my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South is asking me to predict the content of speeches that are likely to be made in support of the amendment. Part of that is the idea that it will be a costly and nonsensical problem for

1079
manufacturers. As speeches in support of the amendment have not yet been made, it is not clear whether it relates to the 1991 interim stage or the 1993 stage. The manufacturers' clear view is that they do not want the interim 1991 stage and are content with the 1993 stage.
It is impossible to answer the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West as I do not know what point he will make. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, if this debate demonstrates that the House wants the 1991 stage—the interim stage—against the interests of the manufacturers and against the natural manufacturing and development cycle of engines, which is what we are discussing, the Government would obviously want to consider such a view. It is highly unlikely that any hon. Member will support the interim 1991 stage. [Interruption.] Obviously I am not suggesting that, because I am the only hon. Member who has made a speech so far.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister seems to be saying that the Government will support the 1993 standard and not the 1991 standard. If the Government cannot have their way in the Council and cannot have the 1991 standard removed, will they still support the 1993 standard?
Mr. Bottomley: My information is that there is no qualified majority to support the 1991 interim standard in the Council of Ministers. Obviously, that is looking forward to 8 June. My expectation is that there will be no qualified majority and that one is unlikely to develop. There is the possibility—perhaps the probability—of getting a qualified majority for the 1993 standard. Those hon. Members who were present during Environment questions will have heard the Government's position on the package which would make sense and make 1993 acceptable. There is a balance in deciding what is right for manufacturers. The 1993 standard, without the 1991 standard, is right for them. It is a matter of what is right for the environment, and I shall refer to that in just a moment.
Mr. Roger King: I have been listening to what my hon. Friend the Minister has been saying. He will recall that we debated this subject on Wednesday 2 November last year. The Government's view clearly was that we would not and could not accept the 5g ruling because of a variety of reasons, which the Minister most lucidly put. One need not recount exactly what those reasons are; they can be mentioned later. What has happened in the meantime that has caused the Government to revise their view and now opt for the 5g limit?
Mr. Bottomley: I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was present when I made the first part of my speech. I do not wish to repeat it. Many other hon. Members heard it, and probably also understood it. I will happily share my view with my hon. Friend later in the debate if he wishes.
One outcome can establish a stable agreement that is understandable by motorists and will offer a sensible path for the motor industry. That is the key change since November of last year. I explained some of the participants in the movement of opinion.
1080
The Government have decided to work as hard as possible to see that the limits are introduced to Europe in an orderly manner. We accept the Commission's proposals for the final stage in 1993.
We shall resist the idea of the intermediate 1991 stage. It is industrial nonsense to set limits that will be superseded after only two years. It may be that the Commission has kept the intermediate stage in its proposal to retain a vestigial link with the common position.
Many other member states share this view. It is likely that the Commission will delete the intermediate limits before the June Environment Council. That would be a substantial step towards the adoption of a directive. It would set a marker for the definitive standards which the Commission is to propose later this year relating to the new, combined urban and high speed test cycle. At the same time, new proposals are expected for type approval durability testing, evaporative emission standards and a second stage particulate standard for diesel engined cars. The Government are giving technical assistance in the development of those proposals.
Some ground is lost by putting lean burn on the back burner. Improving fuel efficiency does matter. It would be a step backwards to have a three-way catalyst rather than one just one way with the lean-burn technology. We want to see what can be done to reap the advantages of lean burn or fast burn. We want to see what scope there is for reducing vehicle weights and aerodynamic drag and taking other efficiency measures. Great strides have been made in the past, in spite of increasingly severe emission and safety standards. That momentum must be maintained.
Good progress is being made towards a stable framework that will allow substantial advances in controlling motor vehicle pollution. It will allow industry to seek optimum technical solutions for the new standards, minimising costs to the motorists. The Government will work to see that the atmosphere is improved.
12.26 am
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Despite the lateness of the hour, it is a pleasure to address the House on behalf of the Opposition on a subject of such immense importance to human health and the natural environment. The draft directive represents what we believe is best in Europe. It is a recognition by politicians from across the whole continent and the political spectrum that industry must serve the needs of society and not vice versa.
To the Prime Minister, this would normally be a case of "meddling Europe". Indeed, the effects of the directive would be much more dramatic than the cigarette packet labelling about which the right hon. Lady made such a drama last week. Her change of attitude is extraordinary. Less than a month ago, she was lecturing my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) at Prime Minister's Question Time about the merits of lean-burn engines over catalytic converters. Of course, the whole stance of the Government over a period of years has been to block the introduction of US-type emission standards to Europe on the basis of questionable scientific advice and a commitment to one particular technology—the lean-burn engine.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that there have been changes in responsibility and, as we said on the hon. Lady's first appearance at the Dispatch Box, we welcome her to the Transport portfolio. However, in the November

1081
debate it was not that we had to have lean burn, but that we had to provide the opportunity for it to be developed. It was not one or the other. The purpose was to move forward to the position of achieving fuel efficiency as well as a better atmosphere.
Ms. Ruddock: The result was just the same—there was a blocking mechanism.
None the less, it would be churlish for us not wholeheartedly to welcome this eleventh hour conversion of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. We have, however, no doubt that the catalyst was not the science with which she sought to support the Government's case in the past but rather the European elections in which concern for the environment will be playing such a major part. The Government have clearly realised that public opinion has moved strongly against the accelerating degradation of the environment, which has been the hallmark of 10 years of Thatcherism.
The lessons of the vehicle emission story are important ones that directly contradict the Government's approach. By the Clean Air Act 1970, the Americans pledged to reduce motor emissions by 90 per cent. by 1983. The risks from carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide emissions were beginning to be recognised, but at that time no technology existed to do the job promised by the legislature. Yet the lesson from the United States is a striking one: set the standards and the technology will follow.
By 1975 the Americans had two-way catalytic converters, efficient in reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. The benefits, of course, reached beyond the control of carbon monoxide, because catalytic converters require the introduction of unleaded petrol.
Unleaded fuel was introduced in the United States in 1974. Within 10 years all American cars had acquired catalytic converters and were running on unleaded petrol. Significantly, I am told, fuel efficiency was increased by 100 per cent. over the same period. With such evidence before them, it is amazing that the Government felt for so long that they had to back a particular technology and to stand in the way of stricter European controls on a technological promise as yet unrealised.
Surely the Government's role is to regulate, to set higher standards and to put the nation's health first. We did not have to choose between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines. They are not incompatible and the scientific evidence varies. Crucially the lean-burn engine is not in production and the three-way catalytic converter is. Whatever may be the best solutions which lie ahead of us today, the Government should not stand in the way of progress.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: We will not.
Ms. Ruddock: We shall see.
I want to consider why we need to deal with the emissions. Current car emissions are restricted under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulations which are extremely permissive standards, allowing 400 per cent. more emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons that are allowed under the United States regulations which have been in place since 1983. On average, a car in the United Kingdom emits a quarter of a tonne of those toxic pollutants while cars in the United States emit only a quarter of that amount.
1082
The problem is growing. Fifty five thousand new cars arrive on Britain's roads each day. The Government's commitment to major new road building will ensure that the problem is continually exacerbated. Sadly the effects of that growth are already demonstrated by the parallel case of vehicle-caused lead pollution.
Last year the level of lead in the air rose in the United Kingdom by 5 per cent. as the result of the growth of traffic volume which exceeded the uptake of lead-free fuel. [HON. MEMBERS: "So What?"] So what? It is going to continue and get worse.
Given the rapid rise in the number of cars, it is crucial that Britain adopts the most stringent standards instead of risking retaining the most permissive.
The emissions with which the directive is concerned are serious hazards to health and to the environment. Road transport is a major source of man-made carbon monoxide emissions. It has an impact on human health, on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. In London the World Health Organisation guidelines on carbon monoxide in respect of human beings are regularly exceeded. Its impact on the environment is via the chemical processes affecting levels of tropospheric oxidants, green house gases and strataspheric ozone.
The other major pollutants with which the directive is concerned are the hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Both types of pollutants again add to the processes which produce the secondary pollutant ozone. The hydrocarbon emissions contain a proportion of highly dangerous polyaromatics which are known to increase the rate of lung cancer. Oxides of nitrogen are implicated in a range of human diseases affecting the respiratory system. In the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides become transformed into gaseous or liquid forms of nitric acid, adding to the acidification of lakes and rivers and the formation of acid rain.
Britain is already infamous as an exporter of acid rain. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, British and Danish forests are the most defoliated in Europe. The United Kingdom acid waters review group estimates that a reversal of the acidification of lakes and streams would require a 90 per cent. reduction in emissions.
These are extremely serious environmental concerns. Thankfully we may be in sight of such reductions. If we are in sight of them, as I sincerely hope that we are, it will be a victory for those of us who have continually pressed for higher standards of environmental protection and particularly for the pressure groups including Greenpeace and the Campaign for Lead-Free Air which have so skilfully assembled the evidence—evidence which, I have no doubt, persuaded Conservative MEPs to drop the British Government line and vote to give us the revised draft directive.
If agreed, the adoption of the United States emission standards will be of enormous benefit to society in terms of the reduction of severe pollutants, by proven technology, of the three-way catalytic converters. They do not, however—and the Minister referred to this—deal specifically with the production of carbon dioxide, of which car emissions are the fastest growing source and which, of course, contribute to the dangerous phenomenon known as global warming.
Total emissions from vehicles of carbon dioxide increase directly in proportion to the growth of vehicles.

1083
Given that Europe, with its 110 million cars, is already the world's biggest car market, we have a major responsibility to the world to deal with that problem.
We acknowledge that, in an advanced form, the lean-burn engine would be a major solution to carbon dioxide emissions because of increased engine efficiency. However, there appears to be no reason why the problems of the other pollutants and carbon dioxide cannot be dealt with in parallel. Catalytic converters under road conditions are more, not less—I stress this because I think that the Minister is mistaken—fuel efficient than non-catalytic cars. Substantial research shows that lean-burn engines, which are said to be 20 per cent. more efficient, are comparable to catalytic converters which can be shown to be 18 per cent. more fuel efficient. We are talking about a 2 per cent difference. [HON. MEMBERS: The hon. Lady cannot be serious."] I am indeed serious. I can give the scientific—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: We are enjoying the teach in. Modern engines are much more fuel efficient than old ones. When a modern engine has a three-way catalytic converter attached to its exhaust system, I think that it reduces its fuel efficiency. That is the point, and we must not confuse the development of newer engines with what is put in them—[Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) who represents catalysts—
Mr. Richard Page: Not my constituency, but one near by.
Mr. Bottomley: I thought that it was my hon. Friend's constituency, but catalysts must be produced in a neighbouring constituency.
Ms. Ruddock: I shall stand by my point, and will provide the Minister with scientific evidence. Having looked at that evidence, I am absolutely convinced that it is quite clear that there are, and can be, gains in fuel efficiency with catalysts, as it is acknowledged that there are with the lean-burn engine. One reason why hon. Members have been misled into thinking that that is not so is due to the test conditions under which the scientific data were originally assembled. That data were based on city driving at an average of 12 miles per hour. In fact, the most important production of carbon dioxide occurs in motorway driving when people are driving much faster. We must make the appropriate comparison in order to find the data on which to base the argument.
Finally, I shall consider the manufacturers, the state of the industry and its preparedness to accept the new regulations. It appears that the manufacturers are not all hiding behind the Minister's caution. Some of them have already dashed to the starting line and many are way out in front. Volvo is making 90 per cent. of its range available with catalysts in the autumn. Vauxhall is already phasing in three-way catalysts on all its cars as standard equipment, starting in the autumn and to be completed within three years. In Germany, one cannot buy an Opel unless it has a three-way catalytic converter. Volkswagen also favours United States' standards. In the autumn it is making its entire range available with catalytic converters as an option and is offering to subsidise retro-fitting to all models made since 1979.
1084
At the moment, Volkswagen is obliged to produce 638 different variants of the Golf engine in order to meet the different standards around the world. I cannot believe, therefore, that the two standards proposed in the draft directive are that significant.
Nissan plans to make three-way catalytic converters available in the United Kingdom ahead of any planned legislation. Ford is introducing the catalyst option progressively on a range of its models over the next 12 months, and from 1990 onwards new BMW models will be available only with catalytic converters.
Mr. Richard Page: I am delighted to hear that those manufacturers are making such a huge contribution to the environment, but do any of them claim that either the catalytic systems already in production in the United States or those that are to be produced will provide more fuel efficiency? That would be a tremendous selling point, and I should be surprised if the manufacturers were not pushing it, if it is the case.
Ms. Ruddock: The evidence from the United States is that fuel efficiency has not been a problem when catalytic converters are fitted to modern cars. We are talking about engines that are being produced from now until 1993, and about the need to reduce three major noxious emissions: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons. There is no other known way in which those pollutants can be reduced to the necessary level.
Mr. Page: I agree with that.
Ms. Ruddock: I do not think that an argument about another form of gaseous emission can be counterposed to suggest that reducing that will prevent us from dealing with the problem in hand, and catalytic converters have no detrimental effect on fuel efficiency.
In the light of the list that I have provided, we feel that we should be a bit sceptical about the Government's view that industry would be greatly disadvantaged by a two-tier system. A number of companies are already meeting the requirements proposed for 1991, and no doubt the supporters of those standards—particularly the West Germans—feel that their removal would be a retrograde step. It is clear that some companies will choose now to go for the 1993 standards and will have them in place by 1991, and nothing in the directive would prevent them from doing just that. Surely the House should welcome such a development, as every year of more stringent standards is a gain for our environment.
We require from the Government an unqualified statement that they will support the 1993 standards. The interim standards proposed may be inconvenient, but what the Minister seems to have said tonight—perhaps he will be good enough to confirm it when he winds up—is that the Government will support the 1993 standards only if they can secure agreement to the removal of the 1991 interim standards. That is completely unacceptable to the Opposition, and we will put it to the vote if the Minister does not clarify the position. We do not believe that Britain should stand in the way of reducing emissions to the 1993 standards because they do not like the interim standards.
This is a major environmental concern: nothing should stand in the way of improving our nation's environment and our nation's health.
12.43 am
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am not easily moved to anger—particularly at 12.43 in the morning—when the House debates an issue of great importance to the quality of life, to the quality of the air that we breathe, and to the whole motor manufacturing industry. However, I am genuinely angry about the constitutional outrage of these proceedings.
This debate marks an all-time low in the already fragile relationship between Government and Parliament over the increasingly contentious issue of how we scrutinise EEC legislation and documents. I have complained often that such debates take place too late, are too short, or concern motions that are too bland or contradictory. But I have never had to complain that there is absolutely no point in the debate taking place at all because the Government have completely cut the ground away from Parliament's feet.
When Mr. Speaker or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was good enough to select the amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends, it was clear that the Chair was taking tonight's proceedings seriously, as did many of my other hon. Friends who came to the Chamber prepared with arguments in the hope that they could take part in the debate. What on earth is the point of being asked to debate a "take note" motion, which implies that the views of right hon. and hon. Members will be heard and carefully considered, when, on the very morning of the day on which the debate is to take place, the Government announce, without learning the views of right hon. and hon. Members, their strategy, tactics and policy, thus taking away from the House the right to have any say or to make any input to the process?
I do not like being, instead of a parliamentarian, a parliamentary wimp, a parliamentary eunuch, a parliamentary cipher.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mr. Aitken: No, I will not. I shall tell my hon. Friend what I will do. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, invited me to move an amendment. I shall not do so. I will withdraw that amendment, because I regard the circumstances in which the debate is taking place as an insult to the House. Important though the arguments are, I do not think it is right to enter into a debate on the merits of the case deployed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Minister.
We are taking part in a sham, a charade, a farce. Such action by the Government and by their business managers must stop and must never happen again. For those reasons, I shall not move the amendment but withdraw it. I shall now walk out—accompanied, I hope, by one or two of my hon. Friends—as a mark of protest against the constitutional outrage that is taking place tonight.
12.47 am
Sir Hal Miller: It is a narrow path to tread between the Euro-fanatics on the one hand and the slashing attack made by the Labour party on the midlands and on industry generally, ignoring completely the interests of workers, whether they be employed in the coal industry—[Interruption.] Yes, we heard all about emissions, but the Opposition totally overlook those of coal-fired power stations and of the midlands coalfields.
1086
The Labour party likes to pretend that it is the friend of the workers when it suits it, and that it is in favour of the coal industry. Its opposition last night to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is now shown to be a masquerade, because they have no interest in protecting the workers concerned.
The only part of the European elections speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) that made any sense—and the Labour party's conversion to the European cause is as breathtaking and as recent as its conversion to multilateralism—was her suggestion that a clear decision should be made to introduce American emission standards, rather than adopt a further range of standards, by a definite date. Shifting the goal posts all the time presents difficulties for the car industry. Of course it is prepared to meet the demands of its customers. If it does not, the industry will soon cease to exist. But the industry must know how the requirements will be framed and when they must be brought into effect.
The hon. Lady recited a list of foreign competitors whom she encouraged to export their vehicles to this country. The Opposition keep blathering about our balance of payments, but motor imports currently account for two thirds of the visible trade deficit—yet this evening the hon. Lady was encouraging that situation to deteriorate further at the expense of jobs and investment. Hers was a preposterous performance.
It is important, of course, that the industry knows 'what the standards are and when they must be introduced. There could be a great advantage if the European standards were set to match the United States federal standards. If there is not that match, manufacturers will have to continue to change specifications. With large volume throughput—alas, our volume is not what it was —it is easier to make more frequent adjustments with more frequent model changes.
We in Britain were developing lean-burn technology, and we were encouraged by earlier decisions that it would be sufficient for small cars. It was of especial interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and myself and to manufacturers such as Peugeot and Fiat, about which we have not been hearing much this evening. Their Governments have voices on the Council and I should not be surprised if they are the ones to which my hon. Friend the Minister was referring when he was hinting at the qualified majority that might be obtainable in certain circumstances for the European standards to be set by 1993, and to do away with the interim standards in 1991. There is nothing to stop manufacturers meeting the standards earlier. No one is seeking to prevent the earlier marketing of models that meet the standards.
Far too great expectations have been raised of what the converters will achieve in the way of brightening up or rendering more sanitary our environment. The hon. Member for Deptford overlooks the fact that she attacked the roads programme. Having listened to her previous objections to British Rail's proposals, I do not know how we are supposed to be able to move round Britain in the increasing prosperity that the Government are bringing to it. She seems to be saying that we cannot have more roads and we cannot have more railway lines.
Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hal Miller: I shall finish my point before I give way to the hon. Lady.

1087
As soon as cars stop in a traffic jam, all the good that was sought to be done is instantly undone and far more pollutant comes into the air. It is more important to ensure a free flow of traffic.
Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the United States, between 1970 and 1983, the emission of noxious gases was reduced by 90 per cent.? That is a proven achievement, and it has been brought about by proven technology. The hon. Gentleman is contrasting the lean-burn engine with the catalytic converter. That does not make an argument in favour of any method of reducing emissions, including the way in which it can and has been done.
Sir Hal Miller: The hon. Lady is knocking British technology again and the opportunity that we have of developing a lead.
Of course there has been an improvement in the United States. There are much freer traffic flows in the United States. That is the point that I was making. Cars are kept moving in the United States, and as a result there is not the build-up of pollution that is experienced elsewhere.
As I understood the rather interrupted remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister, I thought that he was getting the matter right. We should introduce stricter standards in 1993 and do away with the interim standards, bearing in mind that they apply to smaller cars up to 1·4 litres. That is of great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and me, and I know that my hon. Friend will wish to take up the matter if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Manufacturers and others need to know that there will be a set of standards. They need to know also when they are to apply. With that knowledge, we can get on with the job of compliance.
12.54 am
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is a slight improvement, in practical terms, on the last time that we debated this matter. That was at 3 o'clock in the morning, rather than just coming up to 1 o'clock. However, it is regrettable that these debates take place after the event and at a time when no one is listening to them.
It is difficult for the Government to get across the message that they are leading Europe in the drive towards improved environmental standards when in reality they are taking decisions without consulting us first and when part of the proposal is to water down a previous agreement. The Government have a problem over trying to maintain that their view has always been consistent.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the Americans blazed the trail and have achieved dramatic reductions in noxious emissions. It is amazing, however, that whenever this matter is debated we are told about all the wonderful benefits that the non-existent lean-burn engine will create. We are also told —as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has again told us—that we are running down British technology. We have in this country one of the world leaders in catalytic converters but it has to get all its business from abroad. The Government refuse to introduce proposals that would ensure that British technology is in the lead.
1088
I agree with the Government that the French are using stalling tactics. France is the anchor man of Europe in this area. I recall the advert that says that the Peugeot takes your breath away. I think that it does. The French Government's attitude takes it away even more. Peugeot says that catalytic converters are absurd, but it fits them to all its export models so that it can pick up all the business that is to hand.
We must grasp the nettle. We must move forward in a clear and consistent direction and accept that the catalytic converter is the way forward. We should get on with it instead of continuing to use stalling tactics.
It has been said that the catalytic converter leads to loss of efficiency. The hon. Member for Deptford said that that is not necessarily true. I hope that she is right. However, we may have to face up to a loss of efficiency and to an increase in cost, but that has to be set against the environmental improvement that will follow from its use.
The sooner a directive can be agreed and put into effect the sooner the industry will get its act together and address the efficiency and cost problems. I fear that it is wishful thinking to believe that the industry will respond to customer demand. Consumers want to see an improvement in the environment, but how many people are prepared to pay an extra £300 for a catalytic converter unless they are obliged to do so? People were not prepared to switch to unleaded petrol until there was a financial inducement to do so. Incidentally, I wonder when the Government will do what the German Government did. They allowed a significant differential on unleaded petrol until everybody had converted and then they imposed a surcharge. In Germany unleaded petrol is 10 per cent. dearer than leaded petrol now that the Government have got everybody hooked on to using it.
When we last debated the matter the Government said that they were anxious to go in this direction but not too fast because there were a number of technical difficulties and British interests to consider. That will always be the excuse and the argument. Ultimately, however, the nettle has to be grasped. The political groupings within the European Parliament have decided to put on the pressure, and the Commission has responded to it.
I accept that on occasions the Commission gets carried away by its own enthusiasm. Sometimes it makes proposals that are unnecessary or unworkable, and sometimes the time scale is unrealistic. I am not wholly convinced, however, that on this occasion that is the case. The Government will be left with egg on their face. They are suggesting that we push for an agreement that weakens what we had six months ago, on the basis that the ultimate goal is stronger, but that it will take two years longer to get there. That is not a convincing advance in greening the environment. It does not convince me and I do not believe that it will convince the British public. I wonder whether we are engaged in an exercise that will do until 15 June, with the real negotiations happening after that.
I realise that there is very little time and that other hon. Members may wish to speak. I think that we should move forward. The lean-burn engine is now an irrelevance. We should give our catalytic converter manufacturers a clear goal to aim for. We should recognise that the industry has the ability to respond but that it needs to be given a target. The Government should not give the industry all the leeway that it asks for, and nor should the European Community.
1 am
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I have always felt that there is a case to be made for catalytic converters in their own right, and not just as something imposed on us that we reluctantly accept. I do not think that there is a conflict between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines. The catalytic converter is present-day technology which has been used on millions of vehicles throughout the world and of which we have wide experience. There are no lean-burn engines in the strict sense, despite an earlier comment about the Ford engines being built at Bridgend. No one wishes to decry the success of Ford in that work. The plant was built for that very purpose but the engines are not capable of themselves, or even with a one-way converter, of meeting the standards to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
The standards that we should be aiming at are those acceptable to the United States and to Scandinavia. We should be second to no one in our aim. Some of my hon. Friends do damage to the interest of the environment by talking about three-way converters as being an additional cost. Over the years a great many developments in motoring were regarded as an additional cost but they have become the accepted norm. In regard to comfort, we have the car heater; in safety, we have windscreen washers; in environmental protection we have silencers and resonators. I have no doubt that in future we will regard a development perhaps beyond the three-way converter as the norm. It may even be combined with a form of the lean-burn engine.
Accepting the converter does not mean that we have to abandon all other means of improving the efficiency of engines in order to save fuel and the efficiency of their operation so as to reduce the amount of emission into the atmosphere. The sooner manufacturers can ensure that electronic ignition and fuel injection are the norm on all small vehicles, the sooner we shall see improvements in fuel efficiency which will make it more possible to accept the cost of installing three-way converters.
The motorist may well feel that he will be faced with additional cost. The cost will riot be so great when this is a world standard. When converters are fitted to all motor cars as a matter of course, the cost will come down markedly. Because they contain precious metals, the cost will never be negligible, but technology will improve them and the cost will be acceptable. If we can get away from the argument, "Your kind of technology is better than mine," and look for a combination of the best existing technology, we shall be able to sell that to the motorist.
The motorist is as keen as everyone else on improvements in the cleanliness of the atmosphere. I have considerable experience of driving in Los Angeles. Reference has been made to the wide open spaces and the lack of traffic jams in the United States. Anyone who has been in a traffic jam on the San Diego freeway knows what a traffic jam is. I know a great many people in California but I do not know anyone who is not an enthusiast for the improvements that we are still busily discussing. Americans have lead-free petrol and converters and they recognise them as aspects of modern motoring. The sooner we accept that the matter is not controversial, the better.
1.5 am
Mr. Roger King: I have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Everyone should have expressed an overwhelming desire that we should tackle the problems of pollution, especially those that affect the car exhaust system, in the most workable way. Much of the legislation that has been agreed by the European Commission and the member states on the cleaning up of the exhausts of cars of higher ccs than we are discussing would go unchallenged. Many manufacturers, including the Rover Group, already offer cars fitted with catalytic converters and desmogging exhaust systems necessary to comply with that legislation.
In November, we seemed quite clear about our attitude towards vehicles of up to 1·4 litres, but we now have to look at a more stringent set of requirements. Perhaps we thought we had the opportunity to adopt the twin track development of, first, a lean-burn engine system and a single converter and, secondly, a single converter for more conventional engines.
I am not cynical by nature, but I am aware of the imminent European elections. I noticed that the latest edition of the CLEAR newsletter, of which we have all received a copy, under the column headed, "What the papers say", contained an item which encapsulates exactly why this debate is taking place tonight. It highlights an item that appeared in The Independent on 6 April 1989 which stated:
"EC bows to greens and plans tough exhaust controls. In a remarkable gesture to the Green movement, the European Commission last night pledged to propose tough US-style emission standards for cars, which could cut exhaust fumes produced by small saloon cars alone by as much as 75 per cent. before 1993."
I wonder whether there is a connection between what the Commission is seeking to do through the revision of rules that we are discussing and the fact that there is pressure on European parliamentarians in the run-up to the elections on June 15 to take a more positive initiative in solving the perceived problems of exhaust pollution.
Certainly the suggestion that we are seeking to clean up exhaust emissions by 75 per cent. is not correct. Exhausts will not pump out clear air as a result of the new proposals; they will pump out carbon dioxide, and we have another problem with the build-up of carbon dioxide around the earth which will not be helped by creating more of it in the proposed system of exhaust clean-up.
I am not suggesting that we should turn our backs on that system, but there are other ways of tackling the problem. In the early 1970s the United States had a major problem of exhaust pollution, principally in the Los Angeles basin. In those days it was common for Americans to buy 4, 5 or 6 litre V8 cars with very crude technology and very early ignition systems, which because they were never serviced—Americans keep their cars until they stop working before having them serviced—were polluting incredibly badly the environment in which they were travelling. That resulted in the legislature deciding that the exhaust should be cleaned up.
Since then, automobile technology—even allowing for the fact that catalytic converters are not fitted—has moved considerably further forward. For instance, we now have positive crank case ventilation, which means that the internal exhaust fumes which were vented into the atmosphere and which accounted for about 20 per cent. of

1091
exhaust fumes from cars are recirculated and burnt by the engine. That has had a significant effect on reducing emissions.
We have also moved to transistorised ignition, better fuel injection and carburation systems and better techniques of engine management generally, all of which have helped to reduce emissions. We have, therefore, benefited considerably, and in America they have also benefited from the fact that the average size of car, in terms of engine cubic capacity, has dropped as their love affair with Japanese cars has had its impact. They are no longer driving such large vehicles.
It is time for us to ask whether, by this legislation—which will have a significant impact on small vehicles—we are moving in the right direction and whether it will rebound on us. If we pursue this course, it will handicap lean-burn technology. Ford is producing about 450,000 lean-burn-type engines, and I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said about that achievement. New and more advanced types of engine are being prepared, and the Rover Group has a new type of lean-burn engine which is due to be announced later this year.
That is significant progress, but we are putting that in jeopardy by insisting that those engines are also coupled to three-way catalytic converters, which will increase fuel consumption. There is no way round that. The engine is driving an air pump, and as anyone who knows anything about the internal combustion engine is aware, as one drives more systems off the engine, one must use more fuel; it takes energy to drive the generator, the electrical system, the water pump and an air pump into the exhaust system. So it is not true to say that given two cars, one with and one without a converter system, the converter system vehicle will be more economical.
In other words, we shall be consuming more fuel, which will create more exhaust emissions—more carbon dioxide —as a result. If we abandon lean-burn technology and go for the conventional engine-air ratio, burning within the engine, and a catalytic converter system, we shall get an increase of about 20 per cent. in fuel consumption and, hence a 20 per cent. increase in exhaust emissions. In other words, we shall be consuming fossil fuels in terms of petrol at a rate one fifth greater than we need consume.
There will also be a 13 to 15 per cent. increase in price, and there is no escaping that fact. Catalytic converters are expensive, and the ancillary air blowers fitted to them are equally expensive and require a small amount of maintenance. They are expensive to fit and the price will not drop dramatically.
There will, therefore, be little desire to develop the small engine, Surely, rather than concentrate on bigger engines for cars, it would be in everybody's interest to encourage the development of ever smaller and more efficient engines that breathe in less air and, by implication, pollute less. By attaching all this equipment to engines, we shall destroy an area of development which, in my view, could play a significant part in ensuring a better environment.
I fear that, as a result of this legislation, we shall see the end of vehicles such as the Mini, which has performed sterling service as an exceptionally fuel efficient car, averaging between 45 and 60 miles per gallon, thereby polluting in a small way. That vehicle is not large enough
1092
to take this type of three-way catalytic converter. We will have to get used to bigger cars which will allow this type of system to be fitted because space in the car is required to take all the exhaust cleaning devices. They cannot be retro-fitted to existing cars. A car such as the Mini, which has been in production for 30 years, will go out of production as a result of the inability to modify it to comply with the 1993 regulations. A 1-litre car, consuming small amounts of air and polluting less, would be preferable but that is not what is suggested. We seem to want bigger engines and more pollution as a result of loading vehicles with this type of emission control.
Surely it makes sense to exempt vehicles up to 1 litre from having to use this type of anti-pollution equipment to allow engine developers to develop more and more precision engines which are more efficient. We should have engines capable of polluting less. As I have said, we should concentrate on engine efficiency.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke clearly at the beginning of the debate. However, the interim measures suggested will confuse industry. If we have to accept emission control, it would be better to have the 1993 United States-style emission control rather than any interim measures. That would allow the manufacturers to concentrate on one goal. To that extent, I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it would have been much better for us to continue a debate with the European Commission and our partners in Europe to devise a much more sensible way of tackling this serious problem as it affects the small passenger car. There are alternatives and we should have explored them. However, in the event of our not being able to, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is entirely right to opt for the 1993 solution alone.
1.16 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked how many people would voluntarily spend money to improve the environment. The answer is that some would, but not enough. We need some enforcement and a great deal of encouragement and, perhaps, example. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for litter and anti-pollution measures. With others, she has managed to help raise the proportion of unleaded fuel that has been sold from 1 per cent. on her appointment to 15 per cent. now. It has been the second greatest cultural change since the war. If I was asked—I am sure that no one will ask—I would have to say that the greatest is the move away from drinking and driving in which I have played a small part.
The important point is that the 15 per cent. of people using unleaded fuel represents only about a quarter of those who could do so. Even with plenty of information to overcome ignorance and with a lop price differential to overcome the apathy, there is still a large number of people —some are probably Friends of the Earth, some may be in the Conservative party and some may be in one of the Opposition parties—who have not yet got round to using unleaded fuel in their cars. People should do so because that is the way forward. Whether we have cars with three-way catalysts or even one-way catalysts, we shall all use unleaded fuel in our new cars soon. We might as well start doing that now and show that we are concerned.
We have heard some lectures during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr.

1093
King) gave us a lecture. I am sure that it was accurate but I am not sure how much of it would be supported by the manufacturers. We should not mislead ourselves and say that the smallest capacity cars have the best fuel efficiency. That is not always so. In fact, sometimes it is the middle range cars that have the best fuel efficiency. However, that varies between models and manufacturers. My hon. Friend was right to say—I hope that I made it clear in my speech, although some other lectures were taking place at the time—that 1993 would provide clarity for manufacturers. That is important. 1991 appears to have no friends here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) made probably the best speech in the debate. It was forthright, forceful and right. Those who have any doubts or who are no longer in the Chamber might take the opportunity of reading that speech. In that way they will understand what is in Britain's interests as manufacturers, consumers and environmentalists, led by my right hon. Friend, the well-known fellow of the Royal Society, the Prime Minister.
We have to try to keep common sense moving in line with technology. We must provide opportunities for future technology to come forward. It is clear that fast burn and lean burn will be the technology of the future. We shall have moved back one step on fuel efficiency by moving to this apparent compulsion for three-way catalysts. However, that is acceptable and we believe that it is achievable at the environment meeting on 8 June.
I need to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) that his record on these matters over a long time was brought out to the House well this evening and we are grateful to him for explaining some of the myths that should not worry people too much. There are advantages in welcoming progress, rather than rejecting it.
I can remember the early days of my motoring life, as a passenger when I was about eight years old, when it took about six hours to drive up to Stafford. I used to wonder why so many wimps and wets—before I realised that being a wet was a good thing rather than a bad thing—had heaters in their cars when everyone knew that a blanket was perfectly sufficient. Then came flashing indicators rather than little arms that came out at the side of the car to tell people which way one was going. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are many things that are now accepted as part of progress and even as being necessary, when previously they were optional extras and not all that desirable.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) gave the speech that I might have given if I had decided to take twice as long. She explained some of the basic chemistry. There is general agreement on what we are trying to achieve, except that there seems to be a rather liberal approach among the transport spokespeople on the Labour Front Bench. Her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports more new roads. She does not. It seems that we should try to find some way to reconcile that.
Ms. Ruddock: I did not, of course, say that I did not support new roads. I actually said that, through the Government's programme of much increased road building, the problem of increased carbon dioxide emissions will be continuously exacerbated.
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for that intervention. When we open roads like the Acle bypass on the A47 between Norwich and Great Yarmouth, where people in the summer can get through in two minutes rather than previously getting through in 45 minutes, or when we open the Okehampton bypass, where people can get past in 10 minutes rather than 1 hour 10 minutes, we find that there are fewer exhaust fumes. It seems to those of us scooting past on the high-speed train, seeing great lines of motorists and important commercial traffic that needs to be on the roads going nose to tail unnecessarily, that we are seeing more exhaust fumes coming out—exhaust fumes are a better way of describing them than gaseous emissions. We are trying to go for efficiency and to improve the environment.
Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry, but the Minister must acknowledge that it is the increase in the number of vehicles that will be dramatic. One cannot offset that by talking about vehicles in traffic queues.
Mr. Bottomley: Two thirds of the people with provisional licences are women. Under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the proportion of adult women with driving licences has moved from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., and will shortly rise to 60 per cent. and 75 per cent., the figure for men. It is all very well for the Labour party to say that it is all right for people to drive cars as long as they are middle-aged, middle class and male. We should try to remember the women, the pensioners and the ethnic minorities as well. I am a one-nation Conservative, as the hon. Lady has discovered.
The hon. Lady was in slight difficulty with her speech because she had obviously read The Guardian. I need to apologise to David Hencke because I only explained things to him once yesterday and, sadly, he was badly sub-edited. I want to make it plain that I was trying to explain to him —and I take all the blame myself—that we were not keen on 1991, but we were keen on 1993. I hope that when The Guardian reports this debate, it will try to report what I have said tonight, which I leaked to that paper last night.
Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister clarify now, therefore, what will happen if there is not a qualified majority—he may expect it, but he must acknowledge that there may not be—which will agree to remove the 1991 proposals? If the Government cannot have their way on the 1991 interim proposals, will they still support the 1993 proposals?
Mr. Bottomley: Our aim, which I stated clearly, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has stated clearly and which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), also stated clearly this afternoon, is that 1993 is to be supported. We do not support 1991. We believe that there is no qualified majority available for 1991. There is no manufacturing sense to the 1991 proposal, so we are not likely to get it. If the Council of Ministers cannot reach agreement the whole thing will be back on the boil and we can invite my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) back into the Chamber because then the sense of his amendment will have been met. I apologise to my hon. Friend because I should not perhaps have tried to insist on intervening in his speech in the way in which he intervened in mine because then it might not have been necessary for him to say

1095
goodbye. What is important is to meet the last part of the amendment, which was not moved, which is to have what makes sense for the manufacturers.
It is also important to realise that the Government cannot always come to these debates with a totally open mind. I do not recall, when I was a Back Bencher, always coming to debates with a closed mind. When hon. Members, sadly, decide to leave in the middle of a debate, having obviously through extra-sensory perception come to the same view at the same time, they must allow Government to do the same thing and occasionally to try to anticipate the interests of manufacturers, as was wisely pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and many other hon. Members, and to try to provide an indication of what we believe to be not only in the national interest, but in the wider European interest as well. I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have helped to make that possible and I look forward to getting agreement at the European Council on 8 June, supported by everyone who has spoken in the debate, even those who, sadly, are no longer with us.
I ask that the House support the motion and that we move forward towards having a better atmosphere in Europe as well as in Britain.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 4.

Division No. 215]

[1.26 am

AYES

Amess, David

Burns, Simon

Amos, Alan

Burt, Alistair

Arbuthnot, James

Butcher, John

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Carrington, Matthew

Boswell, Tim

Chapman, Sydney

Bottomley, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Brazier, Julian

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bright, Graham

Day, Stephen

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dixon, Don

1096

Doran, Frank

Mills, Iain

Durant, Tony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fallon, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Nicholls, Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Page, Richard

Hague, William

Paice, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Pike, Peter L.

Hanley, Jeremy

Prescott, John

Harris, David

Ruddock, Joan

Haynes, Frank

Ryder, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hind, Kenneth

Stevens, Lewis

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

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Irvine, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Jack, Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Janman, Tim

Waller, Gary

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Widdecombe, Ann

Lawrence, Ivan

Wood, Timothy

Lightbown, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maclean, David

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Maude, Hon Francis

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Miller, Sir Hal

NOES

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

McAvoy, Thomas

Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6529/89 on vehicle emissions; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from small cars, taking into account environmental effects, fuel economy and the needs of industry.

INHERITANCE TAX
Ordered,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Sweden) Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th April.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Schools (Capacity)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
1.37 am
Mr. Tom Arnold: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of school capacity. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I want to draw the attention of the House to the dispute that has arisen between the village of Highlane in the Hazel Grove constituency and the local authority, the Stockport metropolitan borough council.
The borough council has recently carried out a reorganisation of secondary education in the borough and, as part of that reorganisation, it has also introduced new priority areas for determining who can be admitted to particular schools. Since October of last year, I have received representations from parents in the village of Highlane, who have discovered that, contrary to the previous history of the village, they can no longer expect to send their children to the town of Marple to be educated in Marple's high school. That has come as a great shock to my constituents in that village, because hitherto Highlane has been included in the Marple priority area, and now and henceforth that will no longer apply.
I have received a great deal of correspondence and I have attended a great many meetings, including at least two public meetings that were extremely well attended. The feeling in the village has run high, because it is a village community and one where a sense of cohesion has traditionally been a marked characteristic of life in the village.
The situation has been made worse by the fact that it had been widely thought in the village of Highlane that at a meeting in 1985 to discuss the council's proposals an undertaking was given by the then chairman of the education authority that, consequent upon the changes to reorganisation in the borough, parents in Highlane could continue to send their children to Marple. The parents believed that an undertaking had been given at that meeting. The local authority denies that and as there is no agreed record of what took place at the meeting, this rather odd and disturbing situation cannot be resolved one way or another. I thought it worthwhile mentioning this to my hon. Friend the Minister because it underlines once again the extent to which feeling in the village has been driven to a very high pitch by the sequence of events which has taken place.
The history of Highlane has been inextricably bound up with the town of Marple. The children of Highlane have been educated in Marple, to my understanding, since the first half of the 19th century. Certainly in recent decades the links between the village of Highlane and the village of Marple have been very strong. The issue that we are facing now relates to parental choice.
I do not believe that it was right for me to have campaigned at the last general election on the issue of parental choice only to turn round now to the parents in Highlane who are affected by this issue and say to them, "Ah well, but of course in your particular circumstances parental choice does not apply. It is administrative convenience which must rule the day." I do not accept that proposition, but the local council and councillors are urging me to accept it.
1098
There will always be occasions when granting freedom to individuals will produce untidy situations. It may well be that in trying to organise secondary education in the metropolitan borough of Stockport the council will face a certain amount of untidiness if the principle of parental choice is to be allowed to proceed. My attitude towards that is, "Well, so be it." It is worth having a certain amount of untidiness to maintain a fundamental freedom and to increase it with regard to parental choice in this issue.
In a letter to me dated 1 December 1988 my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that there is an appeals procedure. Mrs. Hazel Howard, who lives in Highlane and who is a leading campaigner in the local movement, said that the effect of the new priority areas is that
"the children of Highlane will in future have absolutely no choice but to attend Hazelgrove high school."
My hon. Friend the Minister explained that that is not so. Stockport education authority operates an admissions system which guarantees children living in a certain priority area a place at the school associated with that area. However, that does not debar other pupils from applying for vacant places. It is also open to parents to appeal to an independent local appeal committee if their choice is not accepted. My hon. Friend the Minister explained that he understood that last year 15 appeals against non-admission to Marple Hall school were successful.
All that is true, but I do not believe that an annual appeals procedure is the same as having a right. Previously the parents had a right by virtue of the way in which the boundaries of the priority area were drawn. To tell the parents that they have an appeals procedure available to them is hardly the same as recognising the historical ties of the village and allowing them to take it for granted that their children, upon completing primary education, could proceed to Marple. As I suggested earlier, administrative convenience has won the day. While I do not doubt for one moment that compromises were necessary within the metropolitan borough of Stockport to carry through the reorganisation of secondary education, I want to make my position perfectly clear. I am challenging the council's policy of priority areas.
The councillors and council officials concerned have been at some pains to say to people who have raised objections and made representations to the authority that they do not consider that the capacity of the Marple school is the real point at issue. They say that we are effectively challenging the authority's decision on priority areas. My response to that is to say, precisely. It may well be proper for the council to develop a policy and it may be entirely understandable that it should wish to develop it in this particular way, but not at the expense of the principles to which I referred earlier.
The capacity of Marple Hall school has been the subject of widespread local debate. My hon. Friend the Minister has kept me in touch with the various complicated developments which have taken place in the recent past. I shall not rehearse all the figures now, except to say that parental choice should be limited only by the school's capacity to take pupils, and no other criteria. If Marple Hall has the capacity to take these parents' children, the school should be allowed to do so.
The numbers of children involved are not large. Although, when the matters were first brought to my attention, 35 families were involved, the number of children has now dropped to 11. That is because the

1099
passage of time and the parents' concern about the future of their children's education this autumn has led them to make other arrangements. A number of children have accepted places at a Cheshire school in Poynton. A number of other parents may be thinking that they should accept the policy put forward by Stockport that henceforward their children must go to Hazel Grove. However, 11 parents who want their children to go to Marple Hall enjoy my support.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that Marple Hall does not have the capacity to take the relatively small number of children involved. However, the council has been adamant in responding to all my representations by saying that it is not prepared to deviate from its policy because to do so would create serious repercussions across the metropolitan borough. It would say that, but my constituents and I cannot possibly support that attitude.
What then is to be done, and what would I like my hon. Friend the Minister to do? I recognise that in such matters his powers must, necessarily, be limited. My hon. Friend was kind enough to point out in one of his letters to me that, under the open enrolment provisions of our new legislation, there would be scope for what is referred to technically as the standard number—in this case 270, which has been set as the admissions level for Marple Hall —to be revised.
In his letter, my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that:
"The authority are of course, free to admit above the published admission number if there is fair capacity available. From 1st September 1989, the governing body of the school will also be able to propose a higher number than the authority's published figure if it has reason to think that that number, whether it is the standard number or not, is too low. If that is rejected by the authority, the governing body's proposal will then fall to the Secretary of State to decide … I should explain that this provision does not come into force until September because it will only be then that admission levels are published for the 1990 intake. Admission authorities are entitled to set a level for 1990 and beyond which is higher than a school's standard number, without publishing proposals. It remains to be seen whether Stockport will do so for Marple Hall, but whether they do so now or not is a matter for them."
At the moment, I am not optimistic that Stockport council would wish to avail itself of that procedure because it has been so adamant about its desire to stand by its present policy at all costs. I hope that this debate will help to focus attention locally on the important issues of principle which are involved. I hope that it will help both the Marple Hall governors and the councillors and their officials to recognise that my constituents' sense of grievance in this case is genuine and rooted in much precedent and local history.
I hope that—notwithstanding the lateness of the date in terms of the arrangements that must be made for next autumn—a spirit of good will can prevail, and that the council will recognise that it should try to meet the points that have been made by adopting a more flexible and, I believe, more reasonable policy. That policy should recognise that parental choice has a part to play in our fundamental freedoms, and that an issue of freedom faces us now.
1.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on the tenacity and clarity with which he has pursued this issue over a long period. When I knew that he had succeeded in securing this Adjournment debate I looked at past correspondence and noted that my predecessor also had to deal with the matter. In the light of that, I thought that the best way in which I could help my hon. Friend would be to see whether I could give the House any new or additional information which my hon. Friend could then communicate to his constituents when they sought his advice—which I am sure they will continue to do, given his diligence in pursuing their interests.
As my hon. Friend made clear, his main concern is the matter of the priority areas for Marple Hall and Hazel Grove high schools in Stockport. He has written to me about it several times, and I am aware that it is currently of particular concern to parents in the Highlane area. My hon. Friend described the long and historic links between Highlane and the village of Marple. I confirm that his anxiety for parental choice to be delivered is also very much my concern, and we do not differ at all on the priority that it should be given in practice within local authorities. However, we run a pluralistic system in our society and, indeed, in education, and there are parts of local authority remits in which a DES Minister cannot and should not intervene. We can, however, urge on all involved the view that local authorities should where possible consolidate on schools that are supported by parental choice, and that that is the best way in which to serve the interests of the local community—and, in the long term, those of the local education authority.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the children of Highlane have for the most part attended Marple Ridge high school. Because Highlane is further from Marple Hall than from Marple Ridge and is nearer to another school —Hazel Grove high school—I understand that it was the LEA's decision to include Highlane in the priority area of Hazel Grove high school. That was Stockport's decision. My hon. Friend, as I have said, is fighting for his constituents' interests, and is legitimately seeking ways either to challenge that decision or—as I interpret his comments—to appeal to the authority's sense of reason and duty to respond to the demands of its residents, ratepayers and electors.
I am a little mystified by the attitude that a long tradition should be curtailed, and that long-standing loyalties, parental choice and commitments—which, for all I know, may well run through families for generations —should be severed in this way.
I shall amplify the comment that I made in my recent letter to my hon. Friend. From 4 August 1990, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, schools will be required to admit at least their standard numbers if there is sufficient demand. There is provision in the Education Reform Act 1988 for admissions authorities to admit in excess of a school's standard number. Furthermore, an authority that is not responsible for admissions can take action if necessary.
Where the local education authority is responsible for admissions, that authority is the governors—and vice versa. My hon. Friend may like to consider that aspect tomorrow morning, when we have had a chance to

1101
recharge our cerebra with the tonic that comes from sleep. If the judgment of that authority is that the existing standard number underestimates the school's capacity, and if it cannot reach agreement with the admissions authority on the level of admission, on or after 1 September 1989 it may ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to fix a higher standard number.
Any future amendment to the standard number of Marple Hall school will be for the local education authority and the governors to consider in the first instance. Only the Secretary of State can vary a standard number, so it would not be in order for me to comment on that possibility—in case such an application were to come before my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, to use these awful words, the quasi-judicial position of the Secretary of State is a regular and frequent restraint on what can and cannot be said, even in this Chamber.
1102
As I indicated, the question of priority areas is riot within my right hon. Friend's locus and therefore I cannot comment on it. However, I hope that my remarks on the mechanism of requesting—as in this case, presumably—an upward variation in the standard number are helpful. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will refer to me again if he requires further advice or clarification of how his constituents can make use of that mechanism—presumably, and preferably, with the co-operation of the local authority. I hope that my hon. Friend finds some reassurance in those few words. I shall continue to keep a close eye on developments in the community whose interests he represented so well tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 22 May.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 22 May. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State represented the United Kingdom in the Council and at an EC-Israel Co-operation Council later on the same day.

  The council reviewed progress in the Community's negotiations with Poland on a trade and co-operation agreement and agreed on the need for further flexibility in the Community position. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pressed for a Community proposal on phasing out quantitative restrictions, which took full account of Polish reform efforts, and for early help with management training. The Commission introduced its draft mandate for negotiations with the USSR on a trade and co-operation agreement and the council agreed to consider it further at its next meeting in June.

  The council discussed the Community's trade relations with the United States. Progress on resolving the dispute over hormones in meat, and setting up GATT panels on soya and sugar, was noted. The council expressed its concern over the implementation of section "Super 301" of the 1988 United States Trade Act, and reaffirmed its intention to refer to GATT any United States action affecting the Community which might appear to be in breach of GATT obligations.

  The council discussed a proposal to complete the annex to the council regulation adopted in December 1987 laying down maximum levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or other radiological emergency. A related proposal on the special conditions applying to exports of foodstuffs and feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident was also discussed.

  The Commission reported on the progress in the renegotiation of the Lomé convention and on preparations for the next EC-ACP ministerial meeting in Brussels on 3–5 June.

  The council adopted conclusions on the renegotiation of the international coffee agreement which will form the basis of the Community's position at the special session of the International Coffee Council in London on 5–9 June.

  Remains of General Sikorski
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his 524
  policy to refuse requests that the remains of General Sikorski be removed from the Polish war cemetery at Newark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The matter is a difficult and delicate one which divides the Polish people, both in Poland and in this country. We periodically receive representations, both for and against the transfer of the remains to Poland, and we review them in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. The Prime Minister said in Warsaw in November that the time was not yet right for such a transfer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Vehicle Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the import content of United Kingdom exports of (i) cars and (ii) commercial vehicles in 1970, 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is not available.

  Weights and Measures (Wine)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to take steps to implement the voluntary code of practice on the sale of wine by the glass in licensed premises.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 16 May at column 115.

  Radio
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the review of the civil use of radio frequency spectrum between 470 and 3400 MHz has been completed; and whether he will publish the report.

  Mr. Atkins
  The committee studying civil use of the radio frequency spectrum from 470 to 3400 MHz has completed its review and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today publishing the report. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This review was initiated as part of a rolling programme recommended by the Merriman committee, to audit present use of the radio spectrum, to analyse emerging developments and to assess potential new demands. The report on the corresponding independent review of defence use of this part of the radio spectrum, chaired by Sir Kenneth Corfield, was published in June 1988.

  I am sure that industry and users will welcome this report for its in-depth analysis of the current uses and future demands in this key portion of the radio spectrum. The United Kingdom is already at the forefront in exploring innovative ways of exploiting this crucial, finite, natural resource, and I believe the report makes a significant contribution to the technical base from which United Kingdom can maintain its position at the leading edge of telecommunications exploitation throughout the 1990s and beyond.

  The review was conducted on the basis of existing policy regarding management and allocation of the radio

  525
  spectrum, and is being published in advance of detailed consideration by Government to stimulate interest and to promote discussion.

PRIME MINISTER

  Soviet Diplomats (Expulsion)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will refer the matters which led to the recent expulsion of Soviet diplomats to the Security Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Cabinet Office (Cash Limits)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Prime Minister if there are any proposals to change the 1989–90 cash limit and running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate the cash limit for the Cabinet Office: Other Services (class XX, vote 2) has been reduced by £2,764,000 from £19,403,000 to £16,639,000. This decrease will be offset by a corresponding increase in the cash limit for the Central Statistical Office (class XIX, vote 18) and reflects the transfer of part provision between the Cabinet Office and Central Statistical Office as a result of the reorganisation of the statistical services which I announced on 5 April 1989.

  The running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: Other Services has been reduced by £2,901,000 from £20,984,000 to £18,083,000 in the main as a result of the functions transferred to the Central Statistical Office (£2,898,000) and also to provide £3,000, reclassified from running costs, as a grant in aid to the British national committee for the history of the second world war.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Operational Procedures
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the implications for police operational procedures following the conviction of those involved with the killing of PC Frank Mason;

  (2) if he will announce a new inquiry into police operational procedures following the conviction of armed robbers for causing the death of PC Frank Mason;

  (3) whether, in the light of recent experience, new guidelines on stake-out procedures are to be issued to police authorities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Police operational procedures are a matter for chief officers.

  Woolwich Prison
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his invitation to the London borough of Greenwich to suggest a name for the new Woolwich prison; what opportunities will be given to local people to put forward suggestions; and when he expects to announce his decision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not yet received a formal response from the London borough of Greenwich to our 526
  invitation to it to suggest a suitable name for the new prison at Woolwich. We understand that arrangements have been made as is considered necessary. I shall write to the hon. Member once a formal decision has been taken.

  European Elections (Electoral Registers)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the election officers, in each of the European election constituencies, to issue to the agents of each prospective candidate a full set of electoral registers for the constituency free of charge; and if he will make a statement on the practice currently being adopted in the north Wales constituency for the June 1989 Euro-elections.

  Mr, Douglas Hogg
  No. The Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (as applied by the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 1986) include the provision of two free copies of each electoral register in force to each candidate at a European Parliamentary election, and it is the duty of electoral registration officers and acting returning officers to comply with this provision. We are considering the possible need for some further guidance on this point,.

  Barry McKay
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Barry McKay, detained at Risley remand centre, will have his case brought to court; what information he has on(a) this detainee's dietary habits, (b) whether he has lodged any formal complaint and (c) what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Barry McKay has been at Manchester prison since 29 March and his trial will take place at Chester Crown court on a date yet to be fixed.

  Mr. McKay is a practising Moslem and every effort has been made to meet his dietary requirements since the date of his reception at Risley remand centre on 12 September 1988. However, Mr. McKay refused all food from 27 March until 9 April on which day he requested, and was provided with, food in accordance with the restrictions imposed by Ramadan.

  I understand that Mr. McKay has made no formal complaints about his diet and that he is now accepting food appropriate to the needs of his faith.

  Women Police Officers (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of South Yorkshire as to why women police officers in the South Yorkshire police force, who have been on maternity leave or time off to attend to their young children, are reinstated at a lower rank when they return; what is the policy of other police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Police Regulations 1987, women police officers have the right to return to their force after maternity leave (which is limited to nine months after the birth) without any reduction in rank. An officer who has resigned from the service will normally be considered for reappointment only in the rank of constable, although previous service counts for pay purposes.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers have been employed in England and Wales during each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of probation officers employed in England and Wales at 31 December in each of the last 10 years was:

  Number

  1979

  5,467

  1980

  5,602

  1981

  5,656

  1982

  5,801

  1983

  5,994

  1984

  6,161

  1985

  6,343

  1986

  6,471

  1987

  6,651

  1988

  6,792

  This is an increase of 1,325, or 24 per cent., in the period in question.

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

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's prison Hull was opened in 1870. The accommodation originally comprised 304 single cells (not including those used to house prisoners on reception and undergoing punishment). The establishment's certified normal accommodation is currently 406. On Friday 19 May 621 prisoners were held there, 354 on remand and 267 under sentence.

  The daily routine varies widely as between individual inmates. On average adult inmates at Hull spend at least three and a half hours out of their cells each day for regular purposes such as exercise, ablutions, meals bathing and kit changing, canteen, association and library. The average for young inmates, who receive additional association, is at least four and a half hours. Individual inmates spend additional periods out of their cells for activities such as voluntary education and physical education, work, domestic and official visits and religious services.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently at Hull prison have ever been in-patients at a psychiatric hospital or clinic, showing(a) serving a custodial sentence and (b) those on remand.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not readily available in respect of the total population of Hull prison and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, as records there are not yet computerised. Of the 12 prisoners in the prison hospital on 22 May, five unconvicted prisoners and two convicted prisoners have been in-patients in a psychiatric hospital.

  Horse Race Reporting
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to seek 528
  power to enable him to ensure that the BBC and independent television spread out their horse racing coverage evenly throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  No. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not intervene in programming matters. Subject to the obligations placed on them by Parliament, it is for the broadcasting authorities to decide which programmes to broadcast and from which locations.

  Litter Act
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers the practicalities of introducing legislation to allow the police to levy on-the-spot fines for breaches of the Litter Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are currently considering a number of proposals for dealing with the litter nuisance. The results of the year-long fixed penalty scheme in Westminster will be available soon, and we shall want to consider these before contemplating the introduction to an on-the-spot fine regime nationally.

  Latchmere House (Detainees)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his proposals to transfer detainees from Latchmere house to Haslar in Gosport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We intend to relocate Immigration Act detainees from Latchmere house remand centre to the prison service establishment at Haslar, Gosport as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, probably in early July.

  We are taking great care to ensure that facilities a t Haslar adequately meet the needs of the detainees. Haslar will offer a better regime in more suitable premises and will cater for the inmates' religious and welfare meeds.

  The accommodation at Latchmere house will be used to hold remand prisoners from the London area. This measure will make a substantial contribution to our aim of clearing remand prisoners from police cells.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the imposition of value added tax on pitch fees for static caravans; and if he will make it his policy to achieve consistency between the exemption from value added tax of retired people staying at hotels for periods in excess of four weeks, and such people staying at static caravans for similar periods of time.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of representations via right hon. and hon. Members and I met representatives of the British Holiday and Home Parks Association and the National Caravan Council on 3 May. There is no direct connection between the long-stay VAT relief for retired people living in hotels and VAT on static caravan pitch rentals at seasonal sites. The relief was introduced to protect retired people living in hotels as their permanent accommodation. There is no VAT at all on pitch rentals in
  529
  non-seasonal caravan sites which may be used as permanent accommodation. Moreover, VAT on seasonal caravan sites applies not to the accommodation as such (the caravans are zero-rated) but only to the pitch rental —which is the right to locate the caravan on the park and have access to all the facilities of the holiday park.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of value added tax or of the shortfall on the yield of value added tax as a result of shortages in the number of VAT control officers available for service.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: In their management plan for 1989–90 published in March, the commissioners of Customs and Excise estimated that if there was no improvement in the levels of recruitment and retention of staff, and if each additional control officer could secure the average yield of existing officers some £60 million of additional tax could be at stake: around 0·2 per cent. of the total VAT yield. Although Customs and Excise have been facing difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff, continuous efforts are being made to offset any potential loss of tax by the increasingly effective targeting of available resources.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the identified stock of United Kingdom net overseas assets; and what these represent as a share of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Major
  An estimate of the value of the stock of United Kingdom net overseas assets identified at end-1988 will be included in the Pink Book in August. The latest estimate is of the order of £115 billion to £120 billion, which represents about one quarter of money GDP.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of payments for the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The provisional estimate of the current account balance for the first quarter of 1989 was a deficit of £4·5 billion. This is likely to be revised when the full balance of payments accounts are published on 15 June.

  PSA Staff (Pay)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what local pay additions have been, or are being, negotiated with the trade union side of the Whitley council in respect of Property Services Agency civil servants employed in Cambridge; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table of any such supplementary local pay additions as are paid to Cambridge-based officials, but not Newmarket-based staff, by the Property Services Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Trade and Industry, Forestry Commission, Department of the Environment, and other bodies such as the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, in respect of the following grades: AA, AO, Typist, PA and EO.

  Mr. Brooke
  LPA payments are not a matter for negotiation with the trade union side. However, the trade union side in each Department concerned is consulted prior to their introduction.
  530
  The following local pay additions are currently being paid in Cambridge:

  Administrative Assistant

  DTI

  £300 on entry;

  £600 after 1 year; reducing to £400 on the maximum of the pay scale.

  LCD

  £300 after 6 months.

  MAFF

  £300 on entry.

  PSA

  £300 on entry.

  Administrative Officer

  DTI

  £300 on entry;

  £600 after 1 year; reducing to £400 on the maximum of the pay scale.

  Forestry Commission

  £400 after 1 year.

  LCD

  £300 after 6 months.

  Typist

  Forestry Commission

  £400 after 1 year.

  LCD

  £300 after 6 months.

  NIAB

  £500 on entry;

  £600 after 1 year.

  Personal Secretary

  DTI

  £600 on entry.

  Executive Officer

  LCD

  £300 after 6 months.

THE ARTS

  Printed Matter (Preservation)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy towards the recruitment of technically competent staff able to study, develop and manage the preservation and conservation of large quantities of printed and written material in the nation's galleries and archives; and how many qualified technical staff are currently employed in(a) the British museum, (b) the Victoria and Albert museum, (c) the national maritime museum, and (d) the science museum including the national museum of film photography and television in Bradford and the British library.

  Mr. Luce
  Recruitment policy and staff numbers in the British library and the national museums and galleries are matters for their directors, board members and trustees. I attach great importance to the care of items in the national collections and to that end have allocated half of the £13 million increase for the national museums and galleries from 1990–91 to 1991–92 to the management of their collections. I have also set aside up to £100,000 a year for the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 towards a national manuscript conservation fund, to be administered by the British Library.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Education
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schoolchildren are likely to receive some form of special education in each of the next three years; and what will be the cost of meeting those needs.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department does not project the total number of school pupils likely to receive special education. The number of pupils in special schools (maintained and non-maintained) in England is projected to be:

  Full-time equivalent pupil numbers

  1989

  100,892

  1990

  98,366

  1991

  96,734

  1992

  95,852

  As to costs, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 24 January at column 473. Comparable figures for the financial year 1990–91 and subsequent years have still to be determined as part of the yearly review of future needs. The total spent on special education will partly depend on decisions taken by individual local authorities about the pattern of delivery in their areas.

  Number of maintained primary schools by size January 1988

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  Pupils on roll

  0– 25

  32

  39

  21

  29

  28

  14

  2

  46

  45

  256

  26– 50

  96

  147

  77

  173

  134

  123

  2

  236

  250

  1,238

  51–100

  184

  276

  255

  314

  228

  207

  38

  555

  436

  2,493

  101–200

  546

  846

  1,111

  628

  693

  292

  854

  1,519

  638

  7,127

  201–300

  372

  536

  909

  435

  625

  176

  798

  1,074

  491

  5,416

  301–400

  121

  128

  240

  155

  234

  53

  257

  309

  150

  1,647

  401–500

  27

  32

  68

  38

  82

  16

  81

  81

  29

  454

  501–600

  0

  9

  15

  3

  10

  4

  8

  25

  7

  81

  601–700

  0

  1

  5

  3

  4

  0

  3

  4

  1

  21

  701–800

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Over 800

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  1,378

  2,014

  2,701

  1,778

  2,041

  885

  2,043

  3,849

  2,047

  18,736

  Number of maintained middle schools by size January 1988

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  Pupils on roll

  0 to 25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  26 to 50

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  51 to 100

  3

  8

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  14

  101 to 200

  10

  108

  1

  2

  24

  12

  13

  74

  10

  254

  201 to 300

  20

  110

  1

  10

  54

  38

  27

  169

  13

  442

  301 to 400

  21

  64

  2

  8

  38

  31

  13

  81

  16

  274

  401 to 500

  11

  20

  6

  9

  21

  16

  7

  44

  9

  143

  501 to 600

  5

  10

  0

  4

  5

  3

  1

  11

  2

  41

  601 to 700

  0

  1

  0

  4

  3

  1

  0

  1

  5

  15

  701 to 800

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Over 800

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  70

  323

  11

  40

  146

  101

  63

  380

  56

  1,190

  School Sizes
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will publish a list showing the numbers of primary schools by size, in each region(a) in relation to pupil numbers and (b) in relation to the group size defined in the schoolteachers' pay and conditions document;

  (2) if he will publish a list showing the numbers of secondary schools by size, in each region (a) in relation to pupil numbers and (b) in relation to the group size defined in the schoolteachers' pay and conditions document;

  (3) if he will publish a list showing the numbers of middle schools by size, in each region (a) in relation to pupil numbers and (b) in relation to the group size defined in the schoolteachers' pay and conditions document.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following tables show numbers of primary, middle and secondary schools respectively in each region, by size according to(a) pupil numbers and (b) group size as defined in the schoolteachers' pay and conditions document.

  The figures for primary schools by pupil numbers, include seven centres for teaching English as a second language. Four of these centres do not have school group numbers and therefore do not appear on the table for primary schools by group number.
  533

  Number of maintained secondary schools by size January 1988

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  Pupils on roll

  0 to 25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26 to 50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  51 to 100

  1

  0

  3

  1

  3

  1

  2

  2

  0

  13

  101 to 200

  1

  2

  3

  2

  3

  0

  5

  2

  13

  31

  201 to 300

  11

  9

  13

  11

  7

  2

  7

  9

  4

  73

  301 to 400

  8

  11

  18

  25

  17

  7

  20

  27

  13

  146

  401 to 500

  8

  29

  30

  36

  33

  6

  30

  62

  14

  248

  501 to 600

  21

  47

  52

  38

  54

  21

  60

  96

  39

  428

  601 to 700

  29

  38

  57

  50

  61

  21

  45

  89

  36

  426

  701 to 800

  35

  39

  82

  42

  51

  24

  70

  104

  40

  487

  Over 800

  123

  177

  254

  137

  194

  59

  210

  375

  164

  1,693

  TOTAL

  237

  352

  512

  342

  423

  141

  449

  766

  324

  3,546

  Number of maintained primary schools by school group number January 1988

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  School Group

  1

  129

  183

  101

  198

  144

  146

  2

  285

  314

  1,502

  2

  163

  257

  220

  289

  225

  190

  37

  538

  422

  2,341

  3

  215

  320

  426

  256

  250

  147

  191

  648

  330

  2,783

  4

  515

  815

  1,256

  572

  793

  245

  1,116

  1,459

  592

  7,363

  5

  262

  311

  480

  336

  427

  112

  493

  656

  306

  3,383

  6

  89

  115

  193

  113

  174

  40

  189

  236

  76

  1,225

  7

  5

  10

  23

  13

  21

  5

  12

  25

  5

  119

  8

  0

  2

  2

  0

  5

  0

  3

  2

  2

  16

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1,378

  2,013

  2,701

  1,777

  2,039

  885

  2,043

  3,849

  2,047

  18,732

  Number of maintained middle schools by school group number—January 1988

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  School Group

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  1

  9

  0

  0

  6

  2

  3

  5

  3

  29

  4

  11

  82

  0

  2

  41

  15

  23

  100

  10

  284

  5

  14

  101

  0

  7

  42

  34

  18

  151

  10

  377

  6

  33

  99

  5

  16

  41

  37

  13

  98

  21

  363

  7

  5

  27

  6

  9

  15

  13

  5

  25

  9

  114

  8

  3

  4

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  16

  9

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  70

  323

  11

  40

  146

  101

  63

  380

  56

  1,190

  Number of maintained secondary schools by school group number January 1988

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  School Group

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  5

  3

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  2

  3

  14

  6

  3

  3

  2

  6

  4

  3

  1

  5

  7

  34

  7

  2

  9

  8

  14

  8

  4

  7

  18

  8

  78

  8

  6

  15

  28

  47

  38

  7

  28

  45

  31

  245

  9

  30

  46

  62

  49

  63

  39

  60

  108

  51

  508

  10

  76

  96

  197

  91

  133

  28

  151

  260

  88

  1,120

  534 535

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South-East

  South West

  England

  11

  85

  88

  134

  85

  118

  33

  149

  230

  80

  1,002

  12

  24

  75

  65

  33

  49

  20

  46

  72

  47

  431

  13

  8

  18

  12

  13

  5

  5

  6

  18

  7

  92

  14

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  8

  1

  17

  Total

  237

  352

  512

  342

  423

  141

  449

  766

  324

  3,546

  Teachers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of teachers who qualify in(a) Surrey and (b) England and Wales do not go into teaching the following year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest information on the destinations of students successfully completing initial teacher training in England and Wales relates to 1988 for the university departments of education and to 1987 for the other training institutions. These data indicate that 19 per cent. of those qualifying and whose destination was known had not taken up a teaching post anywhere in the United Kingdom by the end of the same year. Some of these were still seeking a teaching post and will have entered teaching subsequently.

  There are no initial teacher training institutions in the Surrey education authority area.

  Small Schools
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to help maintain small schools in rural areas of the three counties of Yorkshire, and Humberside.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for the individual local education authorities concerned to decide their policies in relation to small schools in rural areas; but my right hon. Friend provides an education support grant for the support of small rural primary schools. My right hon. Friend is also supporting a research project by the university of Leicester to evaluate the pilot projects with a view to making recommendations on practices which could be replicated successfully in other local education authorities.

  Pupil Records (Access)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to make regulations providing parents and older pupils with a right of access to school records, and students with a right of access to further education records.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to make regulations about the keeping, disclosure and transfer of education records on pupils. A consultative document on access to further education student records will issue later this year.

  Superannuation Contributions
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department as to the assumptions made by local education authorities concerning employers' superannuation contributions for teachers in drawing up their budgets for 1989–90; how many authorities are known to have 536
  made no adjustment at that time for the reduction in contribution rates taken into account in the block grant settlement; if he will estimate the number of authorities likely to have (a) 1·4 per cent. and (b) 0·4 per cent. reductions in superannuation contributions in hand to offset the underfunding of the school teachers' pay rise for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The local authority settlement for 1989–90, which preceded the report of the Government actuary assumed savings of about 1 per cent. in employers' contributions to the teachers' superannuation scheme. We do not know how many authorities took the 1 per cent. savings into account in drawing up their budgets for 1989–90. Following the actuary's report authorities generally were able to take into account the additional saving of 0·4 per cent.

  School Governors
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the guidance being given to school governors on their new responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Various representations have been received. In particular, many school governors and others have commended the DES publication "School Governors: A Guide To The Law".

  Women Teachers (Pensions)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will exempt women teachers from the payment of additional superannuation contributions to cover equal pension rights in the period 1982 to 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. When the inequality between widows and widowers benefits was removed in respect of service after 6 April 1988, it was agreed that women teachers should be given the opportunity to pay additional contributions to cover their service before that date for widowers benefits. Contributions before 6 April 1988 did not cover service for widowers' benefits and such service must therefore be paid for.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the outcome of the meeting of Education Ministers in Brussels on 22 May including the negotiations over the Lingua programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  European Community Education Ministers reached agreement on 22 May over a Lingua programme which is expected to cost £130 million from
  537
  the European Community budget over the period 1990–1994. In support of policies adopted by member states to promote increased competence in modern languages, the programme will support periods of integrated study in another member state for foreign languages students in higher education; assist teachers of foreign languages in schools and in further and adult education to extend their professional skills, particularly through periods spent in another member state; provide support in the field of language training for the existing work force; and encourage the development of exchanges with institutions in other member states for young people in professional, vocational or technical training.

  The Select Committee on European Legislation, having considered my Department's explanatory memoranda dated 17 February and 8 May 1989, on 10 May recommended a debate, but it was found impossible to arrange this before the Education Ministers' meeting on 22 May. Given the possible danger of a vote being taken on the basis of article 128, which requires a simple majority, I had informed the Chairman of the Select Committee on 17 May that, if unanimity could be secured under article 235 on a proposal acceptable to the Government, I judged I should not withhold United Kingdom agreement. This proved to be the case and the programme I have described was adopted by unanimity under articles 128 and 235. I regret that in these circumstances it was impossible to complete the normal scrutiny process.

  Education Ministers also agreed to negotiation of the extension to EFTA countries of the Community programme on co-operation between universities and industry in technology training. It was accepted that agreement was without prejudice to our case before the European Court of Justice, contesting the legal validity of the Council's adoption of the second phase of the programme under article 128. Ministers also agreed to resolutions on educational provision for the children of gipsies and other travelling groups.

  Science Base
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what objectives the Government hope to achieve from its £1·6 billion expenditure in the current year on the science base.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The purposes and objectives of DES expenditure on research are set out in a document on the new system of resource management introduced on 1 April by the research councils, Her Majesty's Treasury and my Department. A copy has been placed in the Library but the relevant section is reproduced below:

  1. The purposes of DES expenditure on research are, and should continue to be:

  For the good of the United Kingdom:
  to advance knowledge and technological capability;
  to help produce qualified manpower at postgraduate level; and in these and other ways;
  to help achieve economic, social and cultural benefits.

  The overall strategy objective should therefore be:
  "To develop and maintain a world competitive United Kingdom Science Base in higher education and the Research Councils, characterised by creativity and vitality, which: delivers high-quality basic and strategic research output predominantly in areas with promise of commercial exploitability and other useful applications; and contributes to the preparation of the well-educated manpower which the United Kingdom economy needs."

  2. The main objectives are:
  538
  Quality

  (a) to increase the output of high quality research from the Science Base; and

  (b) to increase the quality and utility of postgraduate education; by

  (c) enhancing the research capability of the Science Base, notably through greater concentration of research activities and more selective allocation of resources;

  (d) ensuring that basic research is properly and adequately sustained, so that creative scientists have opportunity to develop the original insights from which new inventions flow;

  (e) increasing the responsiveness of the Science Base, having regard both to scientific opportunities and perceived national needs, and the balance between them;

  (f) increasing international collaboration in science where this gives good value for money—for instance where necessary concentration cannot be achieved at the national level—and having particular regard to possibilities for co-operation within the EC.

  Exploitability

  In collaboration with industry and other Departments as appropriate:

  (g) to move the balance of research activity towards exploitable areas, having regard both to commercial uses and to those which bring other benefits, such as in health and in the environment;

  (h) to promote greater common purpose between the Science Base and its users—in industry, commerce and government;

  (i) to be more selective in the choice of research activities, with particular regard to exploitability as well as quality;

  (j) to increase inderdisciplinary collaboration in research and related postgraduate education;

  (k) to increase the commercial exploitation and other uses of research outputs;

  (l) to further commercial and other use of Science Base facilities and capabilities where appropriate.

  Manpower

  In addition to the manpower aspects of the preceding objectives:

  (m) to secure a better match between support for postgraduate training and the needs of United Kingdom employers;

  (n) to secure an adequate supply of, and better mobility for, very highly qualified manpower for research in industry and the Science Base;

  (o) to improve opportunities for the most able researchers who might otherwise leave research or emigrate;

  (p) to improve the management, career development and training of scientists in the Science Base.

  A Coherent, Efficient and Effective System

  As a means to achieving the former objectives:

  (q) to bring about greater coherence between higher education and the Research Councils, by promoting shared objectives, concerted planning, and where appropriate shared resources;

  (r) to develop better communication and understanding between the Science Base and the users of its outputs, notably industry and commerce;

  (s) to increase the efficiency and quality of research management and administration in the Science Base;

  (t) to increase accountability for the allocation and use of expenditure on research, notably in higher education;

  (u) to promote further development of monitoring and evaluation of research policy and performance by the Science Base itself;

  (v) to develop, monitor and evaluate policy for DES expenditure on research;

  (w) to raise the level of United Kingdom understanding of, and regard for, the role of the Science Base in national life and especially in wealth creation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have arranged for a paper to be prepared outlining developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Copies of the paper are being placed in the Library. The text is as follows:

  DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT

  Introduction—The Agreement
  1. The Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Margaret Thatcher, FRS, MP, and the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald TD, signed a formal and binding agreement between their two Governments on 15 November 1985 with the aims of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland; creating a new climate of friendship and co-operation between the people of the two countries; and improving co-operation in combating terrorism. The agreement deals in particular with the status of Northern Ireland, (article 1), in which both Governments:

  (a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

  (b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland.

  (c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

  The agreement also provides for the establishment of an intergovernmental conference in which the Irish Government put forward views and proposals concerning stated aspects of Northern Ireland affairs and in which the promotion of cross-border co-operation is discussed and in which determined efforts are made to resolve any differences between the two Governments.
  2. Since the signature of the agreement a number of measures and new arrangements have been introduced affecting the lives of both sections of the community in Northern Ireland. While it is true that some of these were already in hand before the agreement was signed, it is clear that there has been great benefit from the new and substantive co-operation and dialogue between the British and Irish governments established under the agreement.

  The work of the Intergoverntnental Conference and its Secretariat
  3. The intergovernmental conference was set up, under article 2 of the agreement, to deal, on a regular basis, with political matters; security and related matters; legal matters (including the administration of justice); and the promotion of cross-border co-operation. It has provided a valuable framework for the conduct of Anglo-Irish relations with particular regard to Northern Ireland. The conference, supported by the secretariat, has provided a forum which has enabled Ministers and senior officials of both sides to maintain close and frequent contact, which has given them a greater awareness of the political and other realities against which the other side has to operate. It has thus reduced the risk of misunderstandings arising over particular incidents and increased the likelihood of problems being resolved in a spirit of co-operation and without acrimony. It has enabled each side to take decisions within its jurisdiction with greater knowledge and awareness of the likely impact and reactions on the other side. It has also been welcomed internationally, where it has been recognised as establishing a better relationship between the British and Irish Governments and as making a very positive contribution to addressing the fundamental problems of Northern Ireland.
  540
  4. The conference has met frequently since its first meeting on 11 December 1985. The issues discussed by the conference have been summarised in the joint statements published after each conference meeting. The continuing effort to improve cross-border security co-operation is an important and regular item on the agenda of conference meetings. A wide range of other matters has also been considered; and the discussions in the conference are helpful, among other things, in ensuring that minority concerns are taken into account in subsequent policy decisions by the Government. Thus, for example, the Government's proposals which have led to the introduction of further fair employment legislation for Northern Ireland have been discussed at many conference meetings. Other subjects which have benefited from regular discussion include the enhancement of confidence in the system of justice and relations between the community and the security forces. The outcome of many of these discussions is reflected in the body of this paper.
  5. Another area in which discussions have proved valuable is the "Making Belfast Work" project launched by the Government in July 1988. The project is aimed at increasing progress in tackling the problems in the disadvantaged areas of Belfast; additional resources have been provided and the "Strategy for Action" was published in January 1989. A detailed programme of further action planned in these areas in the financial year 1989–90, amounting to £15 million in government expenditure, was announced in March 1989. An initiative to stimulate the regeneration of Londonderry was launched in December 1988.

  6. Article 3 of the agreement states that:
  A Secretariat shall be established by the two Governments to service the Conference on a continuing basis in the discharge of its functions as set out in this Agreement."
  The secretariat is responsible for making the arrangements for conference meetings. This includes the holding of preparatory discussions between officials, agreeing the agenda between the two sides, recording the discussions at the conference itself, and, as appropriate, ensuring that work agreed on at the conference is taken forward.
  7. The Secretariat was established at Maryfield outside Belfast. It is headed by British and Irish joint secretaries, with a small supporting staff. As agreed by the two Governments at the first meeting of the conference, the secretariat has functioned as a continuing channel of communication between the two sides on all matters covered by the articles of the agreement. It enables messages to be passed promptly and potential problems to be swiftly addressed. It has also served as a forum for each side to explain the broad aspects of its security policy and as a channel to convey to the British authorities at high levels the views of the Irish Government in respect of the interests of the nationalist community.
  8. The secretariat is not a "complaints bureau" nor does it have executive or operational responsibilities.
  9. Set out below is a summary of the progress made under each main area of activity of the agreement.

  Rights and identities of the two traditions; human rights and the prevention of discrimination.
  10. Progress has been achieved in the following areas:

  (i) Legislation has been enacted ending the anomaly whereby "I" voters have been unable to vote in district council elections. (The Elected Authorities (NI) Act 1989).

  (ii) The Flags and Emblems Act (NI) 1954 has been repealed.

  (iii) The Fair Employment (NI) Bill which has been introduced in the current parliamentary Session provides for further measures to eliminate religious discrimination and promote equality of opportunity in employment, including:

  (a) compulsory monitoring of religious composition of workforce and periodic review of employment practices;

  (b) establishing a new, and strengthened Fair Employment Commission (and a new Fair Employment Tribunal with wide enforcement powers);

  (c) economic sanctions—those in breach of statutory obligations ineligible to tender for public sector business or for Government grants;

  (d) a new code of practice to be drawn up by the new commission;

  541

  (e) The commission may issue enforceable directions obliging employers to take affirmative action measures and may issue notices relating to goals and timetables.

  (iv) The police have been given greater powers to control parades and marches which are likely to give rise to provocation. (Public Order (NI) Order 1987);

  (v) The law on prevention of incitement to hatred has been strengthened. (Public Order (NI) Order 1987).

  (vi) Irish Language
  Irish views on the place in the curriculum of the Irish language were taken into account during the formal consultation on education reform in Northern Ireland;Guidance has been issued to Government Departments on the use in official business of Irish personal names and on the handling of correspondence in Irish;Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (OSNI) has produced and published a dual-language map and gazetteer of Northern Ireland;
  A question on the Irish language will be included in the 1991 census.

  Role and Composition of Public Bodies
  11. The British side has provided the Irish side with briefing on the arrangements for public appointments in Northern Ireland and provides information about forthcoming vacancies, and has considered any suggestions made by the Irish side.

  Security Policy, Relations between the Security Forces and the Community, and Prisons Policy
  12. The Government believe that creating wider and stronger public support for the police and the armed forces in Northern Ireland is as essential as progress in political, security and economic policies. Security force commanders seek to ensure through training and briefing that the security forces treat members of the public with the highest standards of courtesy at all times. The conference has devoted considerable attention to ways of improving relations between the security forces and the community. The Irish side have put forward a number of proposals in this area. Measures taken include:
  Explicit confirmation of the policy pursued since 1984 that, wherever possible, patrols by the armed forces that are likely to come into contact with the public should be accompanied by a member of the RUC;
  Improvements in the procedure for handling complaints against the police, including the establishment of an independent commission for police complaints. (Police (NI) Order 1987);
  The RUC has made considerable efforts to increase the level of recruitment from the minority community;
  The RUC Chief Constable has introduced a new code of conduct for all RUC officers (placed in the House of Commons Library on 15 March 1988);
  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable of the RUC have jointly written to district councils proposing a widely representative scheme of police/community liaison committees based on police sub-divisions;
  The forthcoming Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order will introduce a statutory requirement for the police to liaise with the local community;
  The Army has introduced new procedures to ensure that, wherever possible, allegations of misbehaviour against members of the armed forces will be resolved with a response to the complainant within three to four weeks; A committee of British officials has been established to keep under review the number and nature of allegations of misbehaviour by members of the security forces and the speed and effectiveness with which they are handled.
  13. In June 1988 the Secretary of State announced a special review of all the remaining special category life sentence prisoners, and shortly afterwards a special review of the remaining Secretary of State's pleasure prisoners who had served more than eight years. Details of the initial results of the SOSP review were made public shortly before Christmas, and the initial results of the special category review were announced in March.
  542
  Legal matters, including the Administration of Justice
  14. A number of improvements have been made in the system of justice in Northern Ireland, which help improve the confidence of the minority community in that system. These include:
  Making all arrest powers exercisable only on the basis of reasonable suspicion—Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act (EPA) 1987
  Reducing the maximum period that a suspect can be held without further ministerial authority from 72 to 48 hours (EPA 1987)
  Establishing a statutory right of access to a solicitor within 48 hours of arrest (EPA 1987)
  Providing that suspects are entitled at the time of their arrest to inform a friend or relative of their arrest and whereabouts (EPA 1987)
  Instituting annual independent reviews of the Emergency Provisions Acts, and establishing a fixed term of five years on those Acts (EPA 1987)
  Statutory changes to the admissibility of confession evidence, to make clear that confessions obtained by the use or threat of violence are not admissible and that confessions can be excluded in the interests of justice (EPA 1987)
  new powers for scheduled offences to be heard outside Belfast. (EPA 1987).
  regular publication of statistics on the operation of the EPA.
  a number of measures have been taken in recent years to reduce the delay between first remand and trial, which for most cases has been significantly reduced since 1985.
  under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1986, a number of offences were added to those which the Attorney-General is capable of certifying out of the scheduled mode of trial.

  And in the near future
  the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order will, subject to the approval of Parliament, provide the same safeguards for persons detained for police questioning under the ordinary criminal law as are provided in England and Wales in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  a guide to the exercise of emergency powers will be publishd and made widely available.
  15. There has been continuous discussion of extradition and related matters to ensure that fugitive offenders are brought to justice. The conference is concerned with policy aspects of extradition and extraterritorial jurisdiction as between north and south and its discussions have improved the understanding of the relevant authorities on these matters. This has helped to ensure that agreement on the need for fair and effective procedures for extradition and for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction is matched by understanding of the procedural and other requirements. Significant developments have been the ratification by the Irish Government of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, and the narrowing down of the political offence exception, initially by the Irish courts. The two Governments have also reaffirmed the importance of making use of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 and the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 in appropriate cases. To try to ensure effective procedures for dealing with the problem of fugitive offenders, a wide range of issues concerning extradition law and procedure have been kept under review. These have included the provision for arrest and detention, the arrangements for the transfer of prisoners where extradition is ordered, and the procedural and other requirements which must be satisfied before extradition can be ordered.

  Security Co-operation
  16. The conference has provided the framework through which security co-operation has been developed and extended. Much of the detail must obviously remain confidential but progress has been made in each of the areas identified in the agreement including joint threat assessments, the exchange of information, liaison structures, technical co-operation, training and operational planning. As well as the provision for regular ministerial discussion of security matters at the conference, there is now a series of regular meetings between the two police forces at headquarters and

  543
  operational levels under the direction of the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana with whom the operational responsibility lies. These meetings are concerned with a wide range of operational, technical and communications matters to improve the day to day co-operation between the two forces. Among the procedures agreed is one for close co-operation in dealing with suspect terrorist devices located near the border. This procedure has been used on a number of occasions and has proved of great benefit to the bomb disposal experts on both sides. It is the firm intention of both police forces to achieve further improvements in co-operation using the new structures which have been established under the auspices of the conference.

  Cross-Border Co-operation on Economic, Social and Cultural Matters
  17. The most significant achievement in the field of economic and social co-operation under article 10 has been the establishment of the International Fund for Ireland. This has already received contributions of more than $120 million from the United States, Canada and New Zealand. The fund has also received the bulk of the first instalment of the European Community contribution of 15 million ecu a year (about £10 million). By the end of February 1989 the fund had approved support of over UK £52 million to over 1,000 projects, which hold out the prospect of some 4,500 new permanent jobs, the preservation of 1,500 more, and the provision of 4,000 jobs in specific construction projects. The work of the fund has involved close, practical cross border co-operation at many levels. As it moves into its second phase the fund is devoting a greater proportion of its resources to the areas of greatest need, both in Northern Ireland (which receives 75 per cent. of the resources disbursed by the fund), and in the six border counties of the Republic: of the grants approved by end-February 1989, some two thirds are located in areas of greatest need. The fund has also established investment companies in both Northern Ireland and the Republic to provide venture capital, either through equity or loan, on the basis of structly commercial criteria.
  18. There has also been discussion, under the auspices of the agreement, of further cross-border co-operation on tourism, roads, transport, water quality, fisheries, education and social welfare, as well as consideration of social and economic problems in the north-west. In the field of health, Ministers have introduced arrangemets for referrals for certain specialised treatments between Belfast and Dublin; undertaken co-ordinated health promotion and immunisation campaigns; and ensured exchange of contracts and plans to deal with major accidents. The possibilities of joint investment in specialised equipment and of co-operation in procurement of supplies are being pursued.
  19. This paper concerns the main areas of activity of the conference. It shows that, under the agreement, there have been constructive and useful exchanges on a wide range of matters. The review of the working of the conference, now being completed, looks to the further development of co-operation within the framework of the agreement.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was raised for charity through the payroll giving scheme in (i) 1987–88 and (ii) 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The amounts raised through the joint payroll giving schemes solely of the Departments of Health and of Social Security were as follows:

  Year

  Amount £

  1987–88

  11,582

  1988–89

  45,624

  1The scheme became operational from 1 March 1988.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is open to him to ensure that the necessary funds are available to provide residential care for the severely handicapped when top-up funding from the local authority is not available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support is available to help people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes meet the fees they pay. The same help is available to temporary residents as to permanent ones.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies have been done to monitor the effects of changes in social security benefits on the number of homeless living rough in London and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are not aware of any study specifically of this issue. The causes of living rough are complex and we believe it would be difficult to isolate the effects of any single factor.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men and women who have reached retirement age before 1 October will fall outside the scope of the abolition of the retirement pensions earnings rule.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The earnings rule only applies for the first five years after pension age (65 for a man and 60 for a woman). Individuals aged over 70 (men) and 65 (women) have always been able to earn as much as they wish, with no reduction in state retirement pension; and they will continue to be able to do so after 1 October. There are approximately 7·7 million retirement pensioners aged over 70 (men) and 65 (women) who will not be affected by the abolition of the retirement pension earnings rule.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the community care grants budget for each of the Liverpool Department of Social Security offices for each of the past two years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the social fund budget allocations for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are in the Library.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will extend the scope of the community care grants; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to allow persons on invalidity benefit who have been institutionalised to receive community care grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 16 December at columns 750–51.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has established any procedures for monitoring claimants who apply for social fund payments.
  545
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have commissioned the social policy research unit at the university of York to carry out research into the operation of the social fund. This research will include studies of samples of social fund applicants.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to start the social fund consolidation training courses for social fund officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Consideration is currently being given to deciding what further training might be required by social fund officers and what form such training might take. At present, social fund officers receive a comprehensive three week training course covering all aspects of the social fund.

  Computers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current use and effectiveness of the microcomputer projects in his local offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The microcomputer projects have been in daily use in local offices for some time. The micros help calculate new income support claims, help process social fund applications, automate bulk payments of claimants' fuel bills, collate management information statistics and aid the speedy location of claimants' files. Since their introduction, significant enhancements have been added to improve performance.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of occasions on which there has been a breakdown of micro-computers used in all his local offices since the inception of the social fund; and if he will make a statement on the effects of such breakdowns on the efficiency of the service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  All LOMP systems: The number of breakdown faults reported to the LOMP central help desk for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 was 2,161 for all LOMP systems. Contingency arrangements for ensuring the efficiency of the service exist for all systems and these were complemented when necessary.

  Social Fund System: The number of breakdown faults reported to the LOMP central help desk for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 was 992 for the social fund system. Contingency arrangements for ensuring the efficiency of the service exist for social fund and these were implemented when necessary.

  Disability
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive and publish the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports to his Department relating to the potential demand from persons with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In the period up to July 1989 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is publishing a series of reports on the findings of the surveys of disability in Great Britain carried out between 1985 and 1988. Three reports have already been published covering the prevalance of 546
  disability among adults, the financial circumstances of disabled adults in private households and the prevalence of disability among children. The remaining reports will cover further aspects of the circumstances of disabled adults, including use of services, transport and employment; the financial circumstances of families with a disabled child living in private households and further aspects of the circumstances of disabled children, including use of services, transport and education. Taken together, the six reports will provide the most comprehensive and detailed information ever collected about disabled people in this country.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the disability benefit system; and what plans he has to consult on this.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 17 April 1988 at columns 10–11 and 22 May 1988 at column 428.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been received by his Department concerning doctors' conduct in examining claimants for disability benefits; how many have been removed from approved Department of Social Security lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Doctors working on behalf of the Department conduct almost 700,000 medical examinations each year on claimants for disability benefits. Although a central register is not kept on the number of complaints received concerning the conduct of doctors in examining claimants, those which are received are all thoroughly investigated and represent but a very small fraction of the total numbers of medical examinations undertaken. Very occasionally it has proved necessary to cease using a doctor whose conduct continues to provoke complaints, but, again, no central register is kept of the numbers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will tabulate the number of successful applications for the review of attendance allowance and break down these figures into those who sought review because they were dissatisfied with the original decision and those who did so because their condition had deteriorated; and if he will give the figures for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  Number of decisions reviewed and revised by the Attendance

  Allowance Board and its delegates by reason for review 1985–88

  Reason for review

  Year

  Number of decisions reviewed and revised

  Dissatisfaction

  Relevant change of circumstances

  1985

  30,101

  12,737

  17,364

  19861

  30,248

  13,644

  16,604

  19872

  43,123

  19,190

  23,933

  19883

  39,513

  17,473

  22,040

  1 To 14 November 1986.

  2 From 15 November 1986 to 8 January 1988.

  3 From 9 January 1988.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average cost per claim for attendance allowance per year for each year since 1985 for
  547
  those claims that were (a) granted, (b) granted on review and (c) refused on review; and if he will break this down into the costs of arbitration and of fees;

  (2) what is the average cost per claim for mobility allowance per year for each year since 1985 for those claims that were (a) granted, (b) granted on review, (c) granted on appeal and (d) refused on review; and if he will break this down into the cost of administration and doctors' fees.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what methods doctors are recruited to examine claimants for attendance and mobility allowances; how their performance is monitored; if he has any plans to recruit other suitably qualified persons to perform this role; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Claimants for the attendance allowance and mobility allowance are examined by doctors selected and trained by the regional office senior medical officer (ROSMO) from registered medical practitioners who will have either made an application to be considered for this role or been nominated by their peers for this task.

  The doctors selected are usually recruited from among general practitioners within the locality who will have demonstrable knowledge of local socio-economic conditions, established experience in general medical practice and evident expertise in conducting medical examinations. Before a doctor undertakes examinations on claimants for the attendance and mobility allowance guidance is given by the ROSMO, or regional office medical officer (ROMO), on the background of, and requirements for, that particular benefit. This instruction is supplemented by written guidance notes for reference. Initially, the performance of the examining doctor is closely monitored by the ROSMO who will institute further training sessions as appropriate; thereafter, there is some monitoring of reports by the ROSMO to identify any further need for guidance. The form, nature and pattern of such monitoring may vary and are dictated by the individual ROSMO.

  Budgeting Loans and Community Care Grants: Numbers and percentage awards by client groups for year 1988–89

  Client Groups (see Key)

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  07

  08

  09

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Total awards

  Budgeting Loans

  Great Britain

  0·5

  0·3

  0·6

  3·9

  0·4

  3·6

  3·6

  43·9

  0·7

  2·1

  16·7

  18·8

  1·0

  3·8

  0·0

  n/a

  504,629

  North East Region

  0·3

  0·3

  0·7

  4·1

  0·4

  2·7

  3·0

  42·8

  0·8

  2·2

  20·9

  17·6

  0·9

  3·3

  0·0

  n/a

  101,558

  Gateshead

  0·3

  0·2

  0·9

  4·3

  0·1

  2·2

  3·1

  43·4

  0·4

  2·3

  23·6

  15·8

  0·7

  2·4

  0·0

  n/a

  2,705

  Newcastle St. James

  0·4

  0·1

  0·6

  4·2

  0·5

  2·5

  4·1

  39·7

  0·6

  2·6

  16·7

  22·9

  0·8

  4·4

  0·0

  n/a

  2,266

  Newcastle East

  0·3

  0·1

  1·0

  4·0

  0·5

  3·0

  3·5

  45·7

  0·7

  2·0

  16·1

  20·1

  0·7

  2·4

  0·0

  n/a

  1,953

  Newcastle West

  0·5

  0·2

  0·5

  3·7

  0·3

  3·4

  3·4

  49·9

  0·7

  1·7

  22·0

  11·3

  0·5

  2·0

  0·0

  n/a

  2,134

  Wallsend

  0·3

  0·6

  0·6

  4·8

  0·4

  2·8

  4·2

  45·3

  0·4

  2·0

  22·3

  12·8

  0·6

  3·0

  0·0

  n/a

  1,326

  Houghton le Spring

  0·1

  0·6

  0·5

  3·6

  0·6

  1·6

  3·4

  44·6

  0·3

  1·5

  28·7

  11·3

  1·4

  1·7

  0·0

  n/a

  949

  Jarrow

  0·7

  0·3

  0·8

  4·2

  0·3

  2·2

  4·0

  45·6

  0·5

  2·8

  20·4

  14·7

  1·0

  2·4

  0·0

  n/a

  1,231

  North Shields

  0·1

  0·6

  0·7

  5·0

  0·7

  1·6

  4·2

  49·6

  1·1

  1·8

  19·6

  12·2

  0·9

  2·0

  0·0

  n/a

  1,213

  South Shields

  0·2

  0·2

  0·6

  4·7

  0·3

  3·6

  5·7

  42·8

  1·0

  1·5

  16·9

  18·9

  0·5

  3·3

  0·0

  n/a

  1,731

  Sunderland North

  0·3

  0·3

  0·7

  4·1

  0·2

  3·5

  2·9

  40·3

  1·2

  2·2

  21·9

  17·8

  0·8

  3·8

  0·0

  n/a

  3,811

  Sunderland South

  0·3

  0·1

  0·9

  4·0

  0·2

  2·9

  3·3

  38·3

  1·1

  2·5

  20·5

  20·1

  0·7

  5·1

  0·0

  n/a

  2,388

  Community Care Grants

  Great Britain

  0·4

  4·5

  3·7

  14·3

  0·9

  3·4

  10·0

  25·2

  0·7

  1·5

  9·5

  16·4

  2·0

  6·3

  0·0

  1·1

  152,574

  North East Region

  0·4

  3·7

  3·7

  14·5

  1·0

  3·2

  9·3

  26·2

  0·7

  1·3

  11·7

  16·3

  1·8

  5·9

  0·0

  0·8

  27,824

  Gateshead

  0·5

  3·0

  7·9

  14·2

  0·0

  3·7

  11·6

  28·5

  0·2

  2·0

  9·1

  12·8

  1·4

  4·3

  0·0

  0·8

  522

  Newcastle S. James

  0·9

  4·3

  3·0

  18·0

  0·9

  3·3

  7·2

  18·2

  1·1

  1·3

  6·3

  27·3

  2·2

  6·1

  0·0

  0·0

  475

  Newcastle East

  0·7

  9·3

  5·0

  20·5

  1·7

  1·2

  7·9

  23·3

  0·0

  0·7

  3·8

  16·9

  1·2

  6·9

  0·0

  1·0

  440

  548
  By their very nature the medical examinations required for the purpose of determining eligibility for these allowances need the expertise and experience possessed by general medical practitioners who are able to provide a consistency of advice across a wide range of disabilities and age groups. In the small number of cases where a specialist opinion is required to determine diagnosis, or assist in resolving complex cases, an independent report is solicited from a consultant clinician who would possess the necessary specialist knowledge applicable to the individual case. Moreover, the Attendance Allowance Board or its delegate in the case of attendance allowance, or an independent adjudicating officer in the matter of mobility allowance, has access not only to the examining doctor's report but other evidence considered necessary, such as psychological, head teacher's and hospital's reports and so on. The present arrangements thus allow for suitably qualified persons to be approached, as necessary, in an individual case.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of registered disabled persons for the latest date available.

  Mr. Scott
  The total number of physically disabled persons registered with local authorities in England at 31 March 1987 was 1,230,632.

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number and percentage of(a) budgetary loans and (b) community care grants awarded to the 15 client groups defined by his Department for (i) Great Britain, (ii) the northern Department of Social Security region and (iii) each of the departments of Social Security serving the Tyne and Wear area for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Provisional estimates for the year 1988–89 based on data for the period June 1988 to March 1989 are as follows:
  549

  Client Groups (see Key)

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  07

  08

  09

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Total awards

  Newcastle West

  0·4

  4·6

  3·6

  21·8

  0·6

  1·5

  10·1

  20·1

  0·8

  1·1

  10·3

  16·1

  1·9

  5·9

  0·0

  1·1

  539

  Wallsend

  0·0

  1·7

  4·7

  16·7

  0·9

  1·3

  9·8

  28·2

  0·0

  0·4

  8·1

  20·9

  2·1

  3·4

  0·0

  1·7

  250

  Houghton le Spring

  0·5

  5·5

  4·1

  4·1

  0·5

  3·2

  14·5

  21·8

  0·5

  1·8

  30·9

  10·0

  0·9

  1·8

  0·0

  0·0

  237

  Jarrow

  0·0

  5·1

  6·8

  19·5

  0·6

  4·5

  9·9

  25·7

  0·3

  0·8

  9·0

  10·7

  1·7

  4·8

  0·0

  0·6

  365

  North Shields

  0·3

  4·9

  3·9

  11·2

  0·6

  2·1

  11·2

  27·3

  0·0

  0·0

  12·1

  17·9

  0·3

  7·3

  0·0

  0·9

  341

  South Shields

  0·2

  2·9

  3·6

  17·1

  1·0

  1·7

  10·3

  26·7

  0·2

  1·0

  7·8

  18·4

  2·1

  6·8

  0·0

  0·8

  546

  Sunderland North

  0·2

  1·9

  2·9

  12·7

  0·8

  1·5

  9·2

  24·2

  1·0

  2·1

  15·2

  21·9

  1·3

  4·6

  0·0

  0·6

  543

  Sunderland South

  0·3

  3·7

  4·0

  14·4

  0·8

  3·2

  11·2

  20·5

  1·1

  1·3

  8·3

  18·9

  4·5

  6·9

  0·0

  0·8

  386

  n/a =Not applicable.

  Key

  Code

  Meaning

  00

  Unallocated or unidentified (by default)

  Applicant or partner aged 60 or over

  01

  Over 80–—with Income Support higher pensioner premium

  02

  Aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  03

  Aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  Applicant and partner aged under 60

  04

  Lone parent with Income Support disability premium

  05

  Family with disability premium

  06

  Other with disability premium

  07

  Lone parent without disability premium

  08

  Signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium

  09

  Signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  10

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  11

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  12

  Others with family premium

  13

  Others without family premium

  14

  Involved in trade dispute

  15

  Applicant not in receipt of Income Support

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund of the 2 per cent. inducement under sections 1 and 7 of the Social Security Act 1986 in 1989–90 and subsequent years; and how much of the cost in 1989–90 relates to contributions in respect of 1987–88 and 1988–89, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Precise information is not yet available on the number of persons who will be eligible for incentive payments in 1989–90. The latest estimate is that incentive payments paid in 1989–90 will be £850 million, of which £350 million relates to 1987–88 and £500 million to 1988–89.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Social fund budgeting loans and community care grants:

  Estimated percentage awards by client groups for year 1988–89

  Client Groups (see Key)

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  07

  08

  09

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Budgeting Loans

  Great Britain

  0·5

  0·3

  0·6

  3·9

  0·4

  3·6

  3·6

  43·9

  0·7

  2·1

  16·7

  18·8

  1·0

  3·8

  0·0

  n/a

  North East Region

  0·3

  0·3

  0·7

  4·1

  0·4

  2·7

  3·0

  42·8

  0·8

  2·2

  20·0

  17·6

  0·9

  3·3

  0·0

  n/a

  Bradford East

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  3·3

  0·4

  2·4

  2·5

  45·3

  0·3

  1·9

  19·5

  19·5

  1·9

  3·1

  0·0

  n/a

  Bradford South

  0·2

  0·3

  0·5

  2·9

  0·2

  2·1

  2·3

  51·8

  0·7

  3·0

  14·3

  17·6

  0·8

  3·3

  0·0

  n/a

  Bradford West

  0·4

  0·5

  0·3

  5·0

  0·2

  2·6

  3·5

  38·0

  1·7

  5·6

  10·7

  25·1

  1·2

  5·1

  0·0

  n/a

  Keighley

  0·7

  0·3

  0·6

  5·7

  0·5

  4·1

  4·1

  42·5

  1·3

  2·3

  15·3

  18·1

  0·4

  4·3

  0·0

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  Great Britain

  0·4

  4·5

  3·7

  14·3

  0·9

  3·4

  10·0

  25·2

  0·7

  1·5

  9·5

  16·4

  2·0

  6·3

  0·0

  1·1

  North East Region

  0·4

  3·7

  3·7

  14·5

  1·0

  3·2

  9·3

  26·2

  0·7

  1·3

  11·6

  16·3

  1·9

  5·3

  0·0

  1·0

  Bradford East

  0·0

  1·3

  1·5

  10·2

  0·6

  1·9

  6·2

  32·6

  0·2

  0·6

  8·7

  28·7

  0·4

  4·0

  0·0

  3·2

  Unemployment Insurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reviews are planned within the next five years to consider unemployment insurance being handled by the private sector.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such reviews are planned.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for (i) Great Britain as a whole, (ii) the north-east region and (iii) each of the four offices serving the Bradford metropolitan area, for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 April 1989, c. 496–98]: I regret that the reply given has been found to contain an error. The information requested with the amended figures is as follows.
  551

  Client Groups (see Key)

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  07

  08

  09

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Bradford South

  0·3

  0·3

  2·0

  8·1

  2·0

  2·3

  8·3

  32·8

  1·0

  0·8

  8·3

  24·0

  2·0

  6·3

  0·0

  1·5

  Bradford West

  0·9

  3·1

  2·6

  9·7

  1·2

  0·9

  7·3

  21·4

  0·5

  3·8

  4·9

  27·9

  3·3

  9·6

  0·0

  2·6

  Keighley

  0·0

  1·6

  1·2

  5·6

  0·0

  2·4

  4·0

  39·2

  0·4

  0·4

  9·2

  20·8

  2·4

  8·0

  0·0

  4·8

  Key code Meaning

  00

  Unallocated or not known

  Applicant or partner aged 60 or over

  01

  over 80—with Income Support higher pensioner premium

  02

  aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  03

  aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  Applicant and partner aged under 60.

  04

  lone parent with Income Support disability premium

  05

  family with disability premium

  06

  other with disability premium

  07

  lone parent without disability premium

  08

  signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium

  09

  signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  10

  signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  11

  signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  12

  others with family premium

  13

  others without family premium

  14

  involved in trade dispute

  15

  applicant not in receipt of Income Support.

DEFENCE

  Military Accidents
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the key statisics for military aircraft accidents over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 5·8 and 5·9 of the recent Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm. 675–10 and to successive Statements since 1980, in which are to be found the relevant information about military aircraft accidents.

  Land (Wales)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has any plans to acquire more land for the use of the armed forces in Wales.

  Mr. Neubert
  We are determined that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary. But we continue to seek to acquire additional land particularly on the periphery of existing training areas to meet the increased needs of the armed forces, and to accommodate the large safety areas which modern weapons demand.

  Radiation (Compensation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce new compensation arrangements for British ex-service men who have suffered radiation ailments arising from their duties.

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

  Night Flying
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the six-month trial of the revised military night-flying system introduced in October 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  A revised military night low level flying system was introduced last year on a six-month trial basis.552
  The trial period has now ended and the operation of the revised system has been reviewed. The review concluded that the revised arrangements were successful in increasing the co-ordination of activity at night and improving deconfliction procedures and that, with some refinements to improve utilisation, the revised system should therefore be retained. It is planned that the further refinements, which include centralising the co-ordination of the system and the responsibility for deconfliction at the tactical booking centre at RAF West Drayton, will be introduced from 1 June this year.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress is being made in developing the European fighter aircraft.

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

SCOTLAND

  New Business
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department is planning to spend in the next financial year to encourage new business development in Scotland; and what was the comparable level of planning five years ago.

  Mr. Lang
  Comprehensive figures in the form requested are not available. A wide range of programmes operated by my Department are designed, either in whole or in part, to promote business development in Scotland. However, planned provision for regional assistance schemes, which are directly linked to industrial development and wealth creation among businesses, for 1990–91 is £120 million. The Government's public expenditure plans published each year include provision for three forward years. The level of provision planned three years ago for regional assistance schemes in 1990–91 was £110 million.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the outstanding debt on the Erskine bridge to be finally paid off.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to specify a date.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current toll charge on the Erskine bridge; when it was last increased; and to what figure.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current toll charges, which have been in operation since November 1981, are as follows:

  Pence

  Motor cycles

  10

  Cars and light goods vehicles

  30

  Heavy goods vehicles

  80

  Heavy goods vehicles (concessionary rate)

  50

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total debt on the Erskine bridge for the year 1979–80; and what it was for each succeeding year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Total outstanding debt for 1979–80 and succeeding years is as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  15·49

  1980–81

  19·90

  1981–82

  24·92

  1982–83

  30·50

  1983–84

  37·04

  1984–85

  44·93

  1985–86

  53·68

  1986–87

  63·26

  1987–88

  73·68

  1988–89

  n/a

  n/a not available.

  Community Charge (Advertising)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total budget allocated to the Scottish Information Office for the production, broadcasting and publishing of adverts relating to eligibility for community charge rebates; and how much has been spent on (a) TV advertisements and (b) press advertisements to the latest available date.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: Expenditure on television public information campaigns on the community charge rebate scheme was £308,000. The rebate scheme was also featured in press advertisment campaigns on the community charge, particularly in the autumn 1988 and the spring 1989 campaigns, the cost of which totalled £181,000.

WALES

  Middle Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing the numbers of middle schools by size(a) in relation to pupil numbers and (b) in relation to the group size defined in the school teachers' pay and conditions document.
  554
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There was one middle school in Wales in January 1988. It had 78 pupils and was group 4 under the school teachers' pay and conditions document criterion.

  Secondary Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing the numbers of secondary schools by size(a) in relation to pupil numbers and (b) in relation to the group size defined in the school teachers' pay and conditions document.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information in respect of January 1988 is as follows:

  Number of pupils

  Number of secondary schools

  Under 400

  13

  401–600

  37

  601–800

  51

  801–1,000

  61

  1,001–1,500

  64

  1,501–2,000

  6

  School teachers' pay and conditions document group number

  Number of secondary schools

  7

  4

  8

  24

  9

  28

  10

  56

  11

  78

  12

  29

  13

  12

  14

  1

  Primary Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing the numbers of primary schools by size(a) in relation to pupil numbers and (b) in relation to the group size defined in the school teachers' pay and conditions document.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information in respect of January 1988 is as follows:

  Full–time and part–time pupils numbers

  Number of schools

  Up to 25

  77

  26–50

  221

  51–100

  342

  101–200

  615

  201–300

  380

  301–400

  97

  401–600

  21

  School teachers pay and conditions document group number

  Number of schools

  1

  314

  2

  331

  3

  304

  4

  556

  5

  187

  6

  58

  7

  3

  Ambulances (A55)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for patients in Gwynedd needing emergency hospital treatment, arising from the road works on the A55 road holding up ambulances en route to hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Temporary traffic restrictions on the A55 in Gwynedd to allow completion of trunk road improvements have been imposed in close co-operation with the emergency services. The administration of contingency plans is the responsibility of each service involved. However, I am advised that patients who require urgent treatment at a district general hospital will be taken to Bodelwyddan if there are difficulties in reaching Bangor. Should it prove necessary the medical services can call on helicopters from RAF Valley for assistance.

  Felinheli Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what date the Felinheli bypass on the A48 was first put into the Welsh Office roads preparation pool; when the first draft bypass plan was put out for public consultation; when the most recent plan was put out to public consultation; whether his most recently favoured route has now been confirmed in detail; what is the latest target date for commencing that work; and when is it planned that the bypass will open.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Felinheli bypass was first put into the Welsh Office preparation pool in 1971. A feasibility study into various routes for a bypass was carried out in 1971 and the selected route was protected for planning control purposes in December 1972. There has been no public consultation but an exhibition of the revised protected route was held in December 1985. Draft orders were published in November-December 1987 and, as a result of objections received, a public inquiry was held in May 1988. The inspector's report has been received and is under consideration. The scheme is programmed to start in the medium term, ie April 1991-March 1994 as shown in the recently published edition of "Roads in Wales", and will take two years to construct.

  Plant Breeding Station (Aberystwyth)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of the Welsh plant breeding station, Gogerddan, Aberystwyth.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh plant breeding station is part of the Agricultural and Food Research Council's Institute for Grassland and Animal Production and, as such, is the responsibility of that research council. The council has been supportive of the station in the past, and I would expect it to be so in the future.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the operation of the set-aside scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There were 35 applications for set-aside in 1988–89; 31 of these have been approved and four were withdrawn.
  556
  The scheme will be reopening for the 1989–90 season shortly.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the environmental impact study being undertaken for British Rail of the high-speed rail link through Kent meets the requirements for such studies as defined by the European Community.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail and its consultants are in consultation with the Government to ensure that these requirements are met.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Humber bridge authorities concerning outstanding debt; whether any amount has been written off; and when he expects the overall debt on the bridge to be finally paid off.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There have been no recent discussions, and no debt has been written off. The date at which the debt is written off will depend on various factors, including future toll levels. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reaches a decision on the inspector's report, following last year's inquiry into proposals to raise tolls, we shall discuss the debts of the bridge with the bridge board.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the repair and renewal work on the Severn bridge will be completed; and what is the current estimated total cost of this work.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The recently awarded contract for the resurfacing should be completed around the end of next year. The estimated total cost of the repair and renewal work for the strengthening of the crossing is £69·1 million.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the inspector who conducted the inquiry into the Government's proposal to increase toll charges on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for the inspector, who is working on his report.

  Central London Rail Study
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made a decision about the options contained in the central London rail study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Further work on the proposed options is currently taking place. We hope to make a decision on the way ahead later in the year.

  Highways (Costs)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the drainage cost of public highways in Britain.
  557
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No general statistics are kept of the cost of draining public highways. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 13 December last Official Report column 520, for the latest figures of the cost in England of maintaining road drainage. It falls to highway authorities to meet the costs of providing and maintaining drainage within the highway and to water authorities to meet the costs of dealing with the surface water discharged from it.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the cost of lighting public highways in Britain.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Current and capital expenditure by central and local government on public highways lighting in Great Britain in 1987–88 is estimated to have been some £225 million.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spends on environmental and safety measures included in new trunk road schemes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is committed to minimising the impact of new roads on the environment and to enhancing road safety. These are two of our main objectives in building roads and form an integral part of our planning and design process.

  Possible measures to mitigate the impact of the road such as use of sensitive design, banks to screen traffic, planting, choice of materials and colour of structures are all taken into consideration when preparing the detailed design.

  In some exceptional circumstances, special features such as tunnels may be incorporated.

  Safety features such as lighting, signing, safety barriers and special provisions for pedestrians and cyclists are considered when drawing up the detailed design; and all contribute to the overall safety of the road.

  Because environmental and safety measures are integrated into the design and construction of schemes, their cost cannot in general be identified separately.

  Information can be given for some illustrative examples.

  On the Al2 Hackney-M11 link road, we estimate that overall some £50 million will be spent on environmental measures, including some tunnelling. This represents about 40 per cent. of the total scheme cost.

  The A69 Newcastle Western bypass is to pass under rather than over the Metro line at an additional cost of £3 million.

  On the A361 North Devon link road well over £1 million was spent on environmental measures including nearly three miles of Devon hedgebanks.

  Planting is only implemented after a road scheme has been built. The expenditure involved can be more readily identified.

  In the last financial year the Department spent £2·2 million on planting and associated works.

  A total of 1·4 million trees and shrubs were planted. Typical schemes are A35 Dorchester bypass where almost 70,000 plants are being provided at a cost of £150,000 and the A626 Stocksbridge-Ml link where £111,000 is being spent on over 60,000 plants.
  558
  With regard to safety aspects, the cost of central reserve safety barriers can be identified. New dual carriageways are generally provided with central reserve safety barriers at the outset.

  For example, over £0·5 million was spent on this on the south Woodford to Barking relief road completed in December 1987 and over £1 million on the Newcastle Western bypass currently under construction.

  In addition the Department has a rolling programme to a value of some £10 million per year to install central reserve safety fencing on existing roads.

  For 1989–90 this represents almost 150 miles of safety fencing. The provision and renewal of safety barriers is also carried out as part of major maintenance contracts.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the current year, the transport and road research laboratory will be continuing its programme of roadside surveys of drinking and driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. This year the survey procedure will be simplified, costs reduced and more survey sites covered.

  Vehicle Weight Limits
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the ending of the United Kingdom's derogations from the European Community vehicle weight limits; and if he will make it his policy to agree only to an end-date which takes full account of the time needed to strengthen United Kingdom bridges.

  Mr. Channon
  As I explained to the House on 8 March, my aim is to resist attempts to end the United Kingdom's derogations in 1993 or at any other premature date. I shall therefore be negotiating at the June Transport Council for an end-date which takes proper account of the need to strengthen our bridges.

HEALTH

  Drug Safety
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Medicines Control Agency is making in the licensing and control of medicines in preparation for 1992.

  Mr. Mellor
  Officials from the Medicines Control Agency are engaged with the Commission and other member states in discussion on various issues relating to the establishment of a single EC market in medicines by 1992. These include the development of draft technical regulatons and guidelines relating to the safety, quality and efficacy required before medicinal products can be marketed as well as broader discussion about the system for licensing and control of medicines after 1992. These discussions are intended to lead to the formulation by the Commission of proposals for a definite system for the free movement of medicinal products within the Community, to be submitted to the Council of Ministers by the end of the year.

  Hospital Treatment (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of hospital beds in the Bolton area taken up by people with heart disease and related illnesses.

  Mr. Freeman
  The hospital activity records for 1987–88 have not yet been analysed to produce information about beds occupied in individual districts by patients with specified diagnoses. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman of the district health authority, who may be able to provide the information.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total number of beds available daily in the United Kingdom and (b) the number unoccupied in the NHS for each of the years 1979, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Information for England is given in the table.

  Beds in NHS hospitals, England, 1979, 1986 and 1987–88

  Year

  Average daily available beds

  1Average daily occupied beds

  Average daily unoccupied beds

  1979

  361,670

  293,272

  68,398

  1986

  315,714

  254,597

  61,117

  1987–88

  297,342

  2240,000

  57,342

  1 Bed occupancy figures are based on a midnight count and do not reflect the use of beds by patients who do not stay overnight

  2 Estimated.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what income has been derived by the Huddersfield health authority from pay beds in the latest year for which figures are available and in the preceding eight years; and how that income has been used.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table lists the information requested from 1982–83 onwards. Prior to 1 April 1982, the authority's predecesssor health district formed part of an area health authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Income from private in-patients (under section 65 of the NHS Act 1977)

  Year

  £

  1982–83

  61,962

  1983–84

  156,764

  1984–85

  191,590

  1985–86

  71,107

  1986–87

  9,745

  11987–88

  16,354

  1 Latest available—annual accounts for 1988–89 are not due for submission to the Department until 30 June 1989.

  Health authorities are free to retain such income, which by its nature is bound to vary from year to year, as a supplementary source of funds in order to meet their total annual expenditure. We do not collect information centrally on the specific purpose to which such monies have been put.

  Counterfeit Medicines
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means counterfeit medicines imported into the United Kingdom from elsewhere within the European Community will be detected when inter-community custom barriers are removed in 1992.

  Mr. Mellor
  Detailed arrangements affecting the importation of pharmaceutical products after 1992 have not yet been decided.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to take action under article 36 of the treaty of Rome, on the grounds of public safety, to control the quality, efficacy and safety of parallel imported medicines in view of the recent instances of counterfeit medicines being found in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans at present to do so. I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 3 May at column 150.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings have been achieved by the Huddersfield health authority by putting ancillary services out to competitive tendering in the latest year for which figures are available and in the preceding eight years; and how have any savings achieved been used.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect information in the form requested centrally. Savings achieved in 1988–89 amounted to £675,000. The total since the initiative started in 1983 is of the order of £1·85 million. Such savings contribute to the total resources available to the district; they are not attributed to specified developments.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the total directly employed staff in the National Health Service, in the United Kingdom(a) the number of persons and (b) full-time equivalents, for 1979, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Total directly employed staff in the National Health Servile at 30

  September of each year: United Kingdom

  Number12

  Whole-time equivalent12

  1979

  1,171,700

  976,900

  1986

  1,217,400

  1,018,400

  1987

  1,222,400

  1,016,400

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: Department of Health (SMI3) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower, Welsh Office; Scottish Health Service common services agency and Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Includes medical and dental locums and nursing and midwifery agency staff.

  n/a = Not available.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for (i) domestic staff, (ii) porters, (iii) catering staff and (iv) other ancillary staff
  561
  in the Oxford district; for how long such vacancies are advertised on average before they are filled, and what was the percentage turnover of all ancillary staff in the Oxford district in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Oxfordshire health authority for the information that he seeks.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the results of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985;

  (2) what has been the cost to his Department of water fluoridation since the Water (Fluoridation) Act came into effect;

  (3) what new estimate he has made of the cost effectiveness of further fluoridation in view of the general decline in dental cavities in children's teeth in the 90 per cent. of the population not in receipt of artificially fluoridated water;

  (4) whether he is prepared to offer an indemnity to private water undertakers who are liable to be sued for harm resulting from fluoridation of their drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 did what it was intended to do and put beyond doubt the power of water undertakers to add fluoride to the water supplied to them when asked to do so by health authorities. No new fluoridation schemes have been introduced since the Act came into force though a number of schemes are at various stages of preparation.

  The central funds allocated to health authorities for the implementation of water fluoridation schemes amounted to £262,000 in 1986–87; £433,000 in 1987–88 and £1,168,000 in 1988–89. The 1988–89 figure reflects the commitment in the Government's White Paper "Promoting Better Health" to increase the amount of money made available to Health Authorities to fund fluoridation schemes. £2,075,000 is allocated for 1989–90.

  A recent survey comparing the dental health of young children in fluoridated south Birmingham and non-fluoridated Bolton (C. M. Mitropoulos et al., Br. Dent. J. 1988) confirms that further reductions in caries levels in children's teeth are undoubtedly achievable over and above the general decline in caries that has occurred. These benefits are particularly cost-effective where caries levels are otherwise high and in the less privileged social classes where the highest incidence of caries is found.

  A copy of the model agreement which provides the basis of discussion between health authorities and water undertakers on the terms under which fluoridation of domestic water supplies may be carried out, including a copy of the terms of indemnity provided for water authorities and private water companies operating fluoridation schemes was placed in the Library on 16 January 1989. We will continue to provide an indemnity to water undertakers after privatisation of the water
  562
  industry; the terms of this indemnity are being considered in the light of representations made by the water authorities and the water companies associations.

  GPs (Remuneration)
  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), 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 which opt to become budget holders may invest any savings on their annual budget in improving the services that 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 family practitioner committees to target funds on areas of greatest need, the deployment of practice team staff will become more cost-effective.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Research and Development
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those agricultural research and development projects from which funding was withdrawn during 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  1. The resources devoted to agricultural research and development by and for my Department were increased in 1988–89. The cost rose from £81·7 million in 1987–88 to an estimated £85·6 million in 1988–89. The majority of the work is included in rolling programmes commissioned with the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and the Agricultural and Food Research Council. Other ad hoc projects are performed by a variety of contractors under short term contracts.

  2. The rolling programmes of commissioned research are under constant review and adjustment, in the light of changing priorities and the prospects for useful results. A number of individual experiments and studies in each programme will have ceased in 1988–89 to be replaced by new work. It would not be possible to list such adjustments except at disproportionate cost. The following short-term contracts were completed during 1988–89; none was terminated prematurely.
  563

  Project title

  Contractor

  Group breeding scheme

  University College, Wales

  Potato clones partially resistant to Globodera Pallida

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  Buffer feeding as a means of increasing the efficiency of grass use

  University College of North Wales

  Response in the yields of milk fat and protein to nutrition

  Leeds University

  Biodegradation of thatching straw

  Bath University

  Storage of Rubus mother stocks

  Edinburgh School of Agriculture

  Free convective airflows in perishable crop storage

  Silsoe college

  Anthelmintic resistance in sheep nematodes

  Nottingham University

  Tuberculin production by recombinant E. Coli

  Surrey University

  Investigation of mastitis in sheep

  Royal Veterinary College

  The dynamic behaviour of specialised spraying vehicles

  Leeds University

  Improvement of fruit quality and control of tree vigour

  East Mailing Research Station

  Maintenance of soil structure, fertility and fruit quality in herbicide managed orchards

  East Mailing Research Station

  Methods for rapid classification of carcasses

  Food Research Institute

  The prevention of bolting in early protected celery

  Glasshouse Crops Research Institute

  Micropropogation of FI hybrid lettuce

  Glasshouse Crops Research Institute

  The nitrogen cycle on organic farms

  University College of Wales

  Salmonella shedding in poultry

  Bristol University

  A mathematical study of the genetics and epidemiology of nematode parasites resistant to anthelmintics

  Strathclyde University

  Modified atmosphere packaging of tree fruits to retain quality

  East Mailing Research Station

  The palatability and nutritive value of low-glucosinolates

  Royal Veterinary College

  The development of a rapid and simple method for the analysis of glucosinalate content of rapeseed

  Food Research Institute

  Broken bones in culled layer hens

  Food Research Institute

  A pilot study of the interdependence of farming and the local rural economy

  Ecotec Consulting Ltd.

  Pilot study of grazing by hares and deer on double low oilseed rape

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Reed beds for agricultural effluent treatment

  Birmingham University

  The impact on the rural economy of replacing agricultural land use by planting woodland

  Laurence Gould Consultants Ltd.

  Flow rate serving for automatic cluster removal on small ruminants

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Review of the risk of exposure of dairy cows to bracken

  Institute for Grassland and Animal Production

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the implications for gas prices for horticulturalists resulting from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on gas tariffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have so far received 10 letters, including two from the National Farmers Union, making representations about the new price schedules being introduced by British Gas and the likely impact of these on growers.
  564
  My officials have subsequently met NFU horticultural representatives to discuss the problem and have asked, to be kept informed urgently of progress in the discussions which they are having with the Office of Gas Supply.

  New Nitrashell
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the make up and side effects of using or storing the fertiliser New Nitrashell; what safety recommendations have been issued about it; and if he will make a statement.
  565
  Mr. Ryder
  New Nitrashell is a propriety fertiliser based on ammonium nitrate manufactured by Kemira Ince Ltd, Ince, Chester, and according to the manufacturer contains more than 28 per cent. nitrogen and as such complies with EC directive 80/876.

  The Fertilisers Regulations 1977, as amended by the Fertilisers (Amendment) Regulations 1984, require ammonium nitrate fertilisers, such as New Nitrashell to meet minimum safety standards which include limits on inorganic additives, heavy metals, the percentage of combustible material and minimum particle size.

  Ammonium nitrate is an oxidising agent which is not itself combustible but can be detonated under conditions of heat and confinement of severe shock. It is therefore controlled under the United Kingdom Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984 and the United Kingdom Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984. These regulations are enforced by HSE, which also issues guidance note CS 18 on storage and handling of ammonium nitrate.

  The Fertilisers Manufacturers Association and Kemira Ince Ltd issue full safety advice for the storage, handling and transportation of ammonium nitrate fertilisers.

  Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) payments under the common agricultural policy and (b) payments from the Exchequer to United Kingdom farmers for each crop and type of livestock since the financial year 1969–70 together with his estimate for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr Donald Thompson
  Expenditure on market regulation under the CAP and on price guarantees up to 1988–89 is set out by main commodity in the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988", and the annual reviews of agriculture which preceded it. Forecasts for 1989–90 are contained in the Supply Estimates

  Food Quality
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the outcome of the informal Agriculture Council meeting in Spain on 16 May on food quality.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: Time permitted only brief and very gneral discussion at this meeting. It focussed mainly on the Commission's suggestion, in its document "The Future of Rural Society", that Community law might provide for certain food designations to be reserved for foods of a particular composition or produced by specified methods or originating in a specific geographical area.

  A wide range of views was expressed. Some believed that such measures would improve food quality, discourage "substitute" products, and help raise farmers' incomes. Others, like me, felt that consumer choice and freedom of trade could best be maximised by allowing producers to respond freely to demand, while ensuring that consumers where fully informed about the nature of the goods offered to them. The Council is likely to return to the subject on a future occasion.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Savings Bank (Savings Limit)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to monitor the new rules concerning the Post Office savings bank, particularly the new limit of £5 savings; what representations he has received on the effect of the rules on children and pensioners saving small amounts of money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  National savings monitors the performance of all national savings products. The increase from £1 to £5 in the minimum for deposits into the National savings ordinary account from 1 January 1989 has reduced the number of deposits transactions by around 20 per cent. So the measure has achieved its aim of reducing the number of very small deposits, which are as expensive to process as larger deposits. Since Girobank and other financial institutions provide a wide range of savings facilities for very small amounts of savings, I am satisfied that this change has not had a negative effect on children and pensioners.

  Representations have been received from many hon. Members and from the members of the public to whom I have explained the reasons for the change.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total number of appeals against refusal of asylum heard by the immigration appellate authorities in each of the last three years.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 19 May at column 321.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people resident in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland have appeared before a social security commissioner in each of the past five years; and if he will separately distinguish the location where those hearings were held.

  The Attorney-General
  The numbers of cases heard by social security commissioners in each of the past five years are listed in the tables, broken down according to the location of the hearings. The breakdown of individual residential locations requested is not reasonably practicable.

  England, Wales and Scotland

  Number of cases heard by Social Security Commissioner in each of the past five years

  Location

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  London

  na

  na

  519

  572

  222

  Cardiff

  na

  na

  6

  42

  56

  Liverpool1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  53

  Edinburgh

  56

  51

  64

  68

  63

  na = Figures not available.

  1 Hearings have only been held at this location since 1988.

  567

  Northern Ireland

  Number of cases heard by Social Security Commissioner in each of the past five years

  Location

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Belfast

  74

  89

  76

  47

  33

  Armagh

  7

  19

  10

  12

  3

  Ballymena

  nil

  8

  5

  3

  2

  Ballymoney

  nil

  nil

  2

  2

  nil

  Banbridge

  nil

  32

  18

  6

  22

  Coleraine

  6

  6

  2

  2

  2

  Cookstown

  12

  6

  4

  nil

  3

  Craigavon

  nil

  1

  3

  4

  2

  Downpatrick

  nil

  5

  5

  4

  nil

  Dungannon

  nil

  11

  9

  nil

  nil

  Enniskillen

  4

  8

  3

  nil

  3

  Limavady

  7

  4

  7

  2

  3

  Londonderry

  10

  7

  3

  8

  5

  Magherafelt

  1

  14

  6

  4

  nil

  Newry

  13

  17

  6

  16

  8

  Omagh

  17

  12

  21

  11

  7

  Strabane

  4

  13

  11

  6

  6

  TOTALS

  155

  252

  191

  127

  99

  Table 1

  ILO/OECD unemployed1 looking for work as an employee2 and wanting a full or part-time job or hating no preference

  Spring 1988, Thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  No Preference

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Great Britain

  912

  333

  66

  403

  95

  120

  Northern

  87

  30

  3

  26

  3

  10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  110

  31

  3

  40

  13

  13

  East Midlands

  53

  19

  3

  30

  3

  3

  East Anglia

  16

  3

  3

  12

  3

  3

  South East

  163

  80

  19

  104

  13

  22

  of which: Greater London

  89

  40

  10

  44

  3

  10

  South West

  40

  17

  3

  31

  3

  3

  West Midlands

  90

  33

  3

  42

  3

  12

  North West

  151

  49

  11

  52

  20

  21

  Wales

  57

  17

  3

  22

  3

  3

  Scotland

  141

  48

  3

  44

  11

  14

  1 People without a job who were available for work and had either looked for work at some time in the last four weeks or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  2 People looking for work as self-employed were not asked if they would prefer to work full or part-time.

  3 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  Source: 1988 Labour Force Survey, Preliminary results.

  Table 2

  Unemployed1 persons looking for work as an employee2 and wanting a full or part-time job or having no preference

  Spring 1988, Thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  No preference

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Great Britain

  907

  334

  60

  369

  95

  121

  Northern

  88

  30

  3

  28

  10

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  110

  31

  3

  36

  12

  14

  East Midlands

  53

  20

  3

  30

  3

  3

  East Anglia

  16

  3

  3

  12

  3

  3

  South East

  166

  80

  19

  97

  14

  22

  of which: Greater London

  91

  40

  11

  42

  3

  10

  South West

  38

  17

  3

  28

  3

  3

  West Midlands

  89

  32

  3

  31

  10

  11

  Northwest

  148

  52

  3

  48

  18

  23

  Wales

  57

  18

  3

  21

  3

  3

  Scotland

  141

  46

  3

  38

  10

  14

  1 Great Britain labour force definition.

  2 People looking for work as self-employed were not asked if they would prefer to work full or part-time.

  3 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  Source: 1988 Labour Force Survey, Preliminary results.

EMPLOYMENT

  Availability for Work
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list from the 1988 labour force survey, by region, including Greater London and by male and female, the numbers of people who were(a) without jobs and who looked for work in the four weeks before their LFS interview and were available to start work within two weeks, who wanted full-time jobs, the number who wanted part-time jobs and the number who had no preference (b) unemployed according to the standard LFS definition who were looking for full-time jobs and the number looking for part-time jobs and the number who had no preference, (c) in part-time jobs who were looking for a different job with longer hours or looking for an additional job, (d) looking for a different job with shorter hours, (e) claimants not unemployed by the definition using broad ILO guidelines on the grounds that they were employed, and (f) claimants not unemployed by the conventional LFS definition on the grounds that they were employed.

  Mr. Lee
  Available estimates from the preliminary results of the 1988 labour force survey are shown in the following tables:
  569

  Table 3

  Persons in employment in part-lime jobs1 looking for a different job with longer hours or an additional job

  Spring 1988, Thousands

  Males

  Females

  Great Britain

  127

  225

  Northern

  11

  17

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14

  26

  East Midlands

  2

  18

  East Anglia

  2

  2

  South East

  26

  60

  of which: Greater London

  11

  20

  South West

  2

  15

  West Midlands

  2

  19

  North West

  23

  28

  Wales

  2

  14

  Scotland

  14

  18

  1 Based on the respondent's own assessment, not on the number of hours usually worked.

  2 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  Source: 1988 Labour Force Survey, Preliminary results.

  TABLE 4

  Persons in employment in part-time jobs looking for a different job with shorter hours

  Spring 1988. Thousands

  Males

  Females

  Great Britain

  240

  123

  Northern

  10

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23

  1

  East Midlands

  19

  11

  East Anglia

  1

  1

  South East

  84

  49

  of which Greater London

  32

  21

  South West

  17

  1

  West Midlands

  23

  13

  North West

  27

  14

  Wales

  1

  1

  Scotland

  19

  10

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  Source: 1988 Labour Force Survey, Preliminary results.

  It is estimated that there were some 100,000 male and 60,000 female claimants employed in Great Britain in Spring 1988. However, a reliable analysis of these figures by region is not available, mainly because of the sampling errors involved.

  Job Introduction Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made for grant aid under the job introduction scheme; and how many have been awarded for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested about the number of applications made for grant aid under the job introduction scheme is not available. The numbers of grants authorised for each of the past five years were:

  Number

  1984–85

  2,033

  1985–86

  1,828

  1986–87

  1,460

  1987–88

  1,629

  1988–89

  2,091

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what review he has made of the effectiveness 570
  of industry training boards in tackling the level of skill shortages or training needs in their sectors; and what were the results of the review for each training organisation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The effectiveness of each industry training board is reviewed every three years at the time of reconstitution. Many industries covered by these boards continue to report skill shortages.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what review he has undertaken of the effectiveness of non-statutory training organisations in tackling the level of skill shortages or training needs in their sectors; and what were the results of the review for each training organisation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The effectiveness of non-statutory training organisations was last reviewed during a Manpower Services Commission research study in 1987. The criteria used included monitoring and reviewing key skill requirements and training needs. The report showed that 56 were rated effective and a further 23 partially effective against the full range of the criteria. The report did not rank organisations against each criterion.

  Non-statutory Training Organisations
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which areas the level of effectiveness of non-statutory training organisations has improved since production of the Manpower Services Commission study "The Full Fact Finding Study of the NSTO System".

  Mr. Cope
  There has been no overall study of the effectiveness of non-statutory training organisations since the Manpower Services Commission research report in 1987.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many non-statutory training organisations currently meet the standards laid down in the Manpower Services Commission publication "The Effective NSTO"; and what steps he is taking to secure compliance with those standards by the remaining non-statutory training organisations.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the Manpower Services Commission research report in 1987, many non-statutory training organisations have taken steps to improve their effectiveness. The Government continue to provide financial support to help effectiveness improvements in these organisations. "Employment for the 1990s" (Cm. 540) noted the Government's welcome for the establishment of the voluntary National Council for Industry Training Organisations, and the Training Agency is assisting the council in producing a code of practice for members. Further research will be commissioned in due course.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current level of resourcing and support to non-statutory training organisations from employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The majority of non-statutory training organisations command the support of the employers in their industries and have adequate resources to be effective in carrying forward the remits for industry-level training
  571
  organisations set out in "Employment for the 1990s" (Cm 540). The Government continue to assist the less effective and new bodies.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, in the light of the finding of the Manpower Services Commission study "The Full Fact Finding Study of the NSTO System" that 79 per cent. of employers would not contribute more resources to training organisations, what steps he is taking to ensure that the industry-level training organisations proposed in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" will attract sufficient industry support.

  Mr. Cope
  The great majority of employers in Great Britain support vocational education and training for their employees; a very small proportion of that support goes to finance the voluntary and independent non-statutory training organisations. All proposals for new organisations are required to detail the level of support being obtained from employers in the relevant industry.

  Competent Persons (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many competent persons have been prosecuted in each year since 1965.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available.

  Power Presses
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many injuries and deaths there have been at power presses for each year since the Power Presses Regulations were introduced in 1965.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Power presses are not separately identified in the Health and Safety Executive's current databases of reported injuries at work. Available information is taken from annual surveys which were discontinued after 1974, but comparable data was collected in 1979 and 1983. The results are shown in the table.

  1 December 1987

  1 May 1989

  Grade

  Number

  (of which in the field force)

  Number

  (of which in the field force)

  Chief Inspector

  1

  (—)

  1

  (—)

  Deputy Chief Inspector

  6

  1

  4

  (—)

  Senior Area Director

  2

  (1)

  4

  (2)

  Area Director

  18

  (18)

  17

  (17)

  Superintending Inspector

  3

  (—)

  3

  (—)

  Deputy Superintending Inspector

  44

  (25)

  38

  (24)

  Inspector 1A

  159

  (123)

  165·5

  (124·5)

  Inspector 1B

  283

  (268)

  276·5

  (263·5)

  Inspector 1I

  95

  (95)

  102

  (102)

  Total

  611

  (531)

  611

  (533)

  Following the latest in a series of recruitment competitions, a number of successful candidates have been or will be offered employment as factory inspectors. A further recruitment competition is currently under way.

  Agriculture Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of agricultural inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive
  572

  Accidents at the Tools of Power Presses and Press Brakes1

  Number

  1965

  441

  1966

  342

  1967

  230

  1968

  234

  1969

  245

  1970

  203

  1971

  159

  1972

  153

  1973

  152

  1974

  145

  1979

  48

  1983

  27

  1 Reportable injuries notified to Her Majesty's factory inspectorate; severity is not recorded.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many competent persons have been prosecuted in each year since 1965 in relation to the 1965 Power Presses Regulations and any other legislation relevant to power presses.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. The HSE records do not specifically identify proceedings taken against competent persons.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State Cor Employment what was the total number of factory inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 2 December 1987; how many were employed in each of the grades of inspector II, inspector 1B, inspector 1A, deputy superintending inspector, superintending inspector, area director, senior area director, deputy chief inspector and chief inspector, respectively; what are the latest totals in each of these categories; and how many in each of the categories for both dates were in the field.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The breakdown by grade of number of factory inspectors employed in HSE is as follows. Staffing figures are recorded on the first of each month.

  on 2 December 1987; how many were employed in each of the grades of assistant inspector, inspector, principal inspector, principal inspector 1, deputy superintending inspector, deputy chief inspector and chief inspector, respectively; what are the latest totals in each of these categories; and how many in each of the categories for both dates were in the field.
  573
  Mr. Nicholls
  The breakdown by grade of the number of agricultural inspectors employed in HSE is as follows. Staffing figures are recorded on the first of each month.

  1 December 1987

  1 May 1989

  Grade

  Number

  (of which in the field force)

  Number

  (of which in the field force)

  Chief Inspctor

  1

  (—)

  1

  (—)

  Deputy Chief Inspector

  2

  (—)

  2

  (—)

  Deputy Superintending Inspector

  3

  (3)

  3

  (3)

  Principal Inspector 1

  7

  (6)

  6

  (5)

  Principal Inspector

  29

  (24)

  28

  (23)

  Inspector

  91

  (80)

  100

  (86)

  Assistant Inspector

  25

  (25)

  26

  (26)

  Total

  158

  (138)

  16

  (143)

  A recruitment competition is currently under way.

  Construction (Safety)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will investigate the reasons for the differences in death, serious injury and ill-health rates on construction sites with the highest and lowest rates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not record fatal accident, serious injury or ill-health rates for individual construction sites and, therefore, the sites with the highest and lowest rates cannot be identified.

  However, the "Blackspot Construction" report published by the HSE in June 1988 analysed the circumstances of 739 deaths in the construction industry between 1981 and 1985 and showed that 70 per cent. could have been avoided by positive management action.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report provisional figures for 1988–89 giving (a) the number of fatalities and (b) the number of major injuries (i) in the London region and (ii) nationally for the construction industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures for 1988–89 are in the process of compilation but are not yet available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the reasons why death and serious injuries in local authority direct labour buiding works are lower than in private industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comparisons of the kind the hon. Member has in mind would be meaningless, even if reliable and comprehensive figures were available, since the work performed by organisations of different types and size in the construction industry differs substantially.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his statement in the House on 11 April,Official Report, columns 833–34, on the correlation between firms with good safety standards and those that are successful, he will publish in the Official Report the names of the successful companies giving examples of their good safety record and stating whether the companies recognise trade unions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. As I pointed out in my statement to the House on 11 April, the correlation between good safety standards and other positive aspects of firms' performance is based on the experience and observations of HSE inspectors.

  Release for Training Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made for grant aid for the release for training scheme; and how many have been awarded for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available.

  Personal Reader Service Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made for grant aid under the personal leader service scheme, and how many have been awarded for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  I take it that the hon. Member's question refers to my Department's personal reader service scheme.

  Information about the number of applications made for grant aid under this scheme for the last five years is not available.

  The number of new beneficiaries receiving grants in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  75

  1985–86

  80

  1986–87

  62

  1987–88

  107

  1988–89

  116

  Employment (Special Aids)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been awarded for grant aid for the special aids to employment; and how many have been awarded for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested about the number of applications made for grant aid under the special aids to employment scheme is not available. The numbers of grants authorised for each of the past five years were:

  Number

  1984–85

  1,640

  1985–86

  2,386

  1986–87

  2,630

  1987–88

  3,041

  1988–89

  4,242

  Fares to Work Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made for grant aid under the fares to work scheme; and how many have been awarded for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested about the number of applications made for grant aid under the assistance with fares to work scheme is not available. The numbers of grants authorised for each of the past five years were:

  Number

  1984–85

  390

  1985–86

  434

  1986–87

  536

  1987–88

  553

  1988–89

  617

  Adaptations to Premises and Equipment
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made for grant aid under the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme; and how many have been awarded for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested about the number of applications made for grant aid under the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme, is not available. The numbers of grants authorised for each of the past five years were:

  Number

  1984–85

  145

  1985–86

  165

  1986–87

  253

  1987–88

  252

  1988–89

  247

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions the internal review on the employment practices for disabled persons has reached on altering or retaining the quota system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Consideration of the issues being examined in the internal review of my Department's services for people with disabilities has not yet been completed. The review will be completed and the results published as soon as possible.

  Disabled Workers (Quotas)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of permits issued exempting employers from the quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table gives information about the number of employers issued with permits some of whom may have received more than one permit during the years shown.
  576

  Number of Employers who were below quota on 1 June but who had been granted bulk permits during the previous 12 months

  Number

  1984

  18,769

  1985

  18,681

  1986

  18,840

  1987

  18,577

  1988

  18,594

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of bulk permits issued exempting employers from the quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table gives information about the number of employers issued with bulk permits (some of whom may have received more than one permit) during the years shown.

  Number of Employers who were below quota on 1 June but who had been granted bulk permits during the previous 12 months

  Number

  1984

  18,300

  1985

  18,486

  1986

  18,683

  1987

  18,480

  1988

  18,331

  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount spent on employment rehabilitation centres for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The total expenditure for the employment rehabilitation service (which includes employment rehabilitation centres) was as follows:

  £ million

  11988–89

  20

  1987–88

  23

  1986–87

  22

  1985–86

  20

  1984–85

  20

  1 Provisional figure.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been instigated for contravention of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 for each of the past five years; and what has been the total amount paid in fines.

  Mr. Lee
  There have been no prosecutions under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 in the last five years.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what publicity initiatives have been taken by his Department regarding the uptake of grants by employers for the employment of disabled persons, for the last three years; and what has been the total expenditure.

  Mr. Lee
  Publicity initiatives about schemes and services for the employment of disabled people during the
  577
  last three years have included ongoing promotion of the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people and the associated videos "It Worked Fine" and "It Can Be Done". In 1988 a new series of leaflets for employers and people with disabilities was introduced. In 1989, additional leaflets about specific disabilities, the disablement resettlement officer service and jobhunting for people with disabilities were provided. Publicity material is displayed at appropriate conferences, exhibitions and so on. The Disablement Advisory Service provides information about such schemes and services as part of its advisory role to employers. The total expenditure for the three years was approximately £651,500, excluding staff costs which are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people with disabilities are employed by his Department(a) as a total number, and (b) as a percentage of the total work force.

  Mr. Lee
  The Employment Department group employs 1,502 registered disabled staff; they represent 2.5 per cent. of permanent staff in the group. In addition, the group employs a number of other people with disabilities who choose not to register.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the total number of part-time female employees in employment in Scotland and for each of the years June 1979 to June 1988;

  (2) what was the total number of part-time male employees in employment in Scotland for each of the years June 1979 to June 1988;

  (3) what was the total number of full-time male employees in employment in Scotland for each of the years June 1979 to June 1988;

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19884

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Employees and self employed2

  Full-time3

  Northern region

  672

  268

  662

  251

  661

  254

  658

  269

  671

  275

  671

  288

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  1,117

  430

  1,132

  420

  1,132

  416

  1,104

  433

  1,096

  438

  1,118

  422

  East Midlands region

  954

  378

  949

  376

  935

  366

  965

  359

  954

  374

  980

  413

  East Anglia region

  470

  166

  494

  159

  490

  171

  489

  190

  499

  194

  520

  206

  South East region

  4,274

  1,833

  4,336

  1,870

  4,378

  1,893

  4,350

  1,922

  4,371

  1,965

  4,540

  2,039

  of which Greater London

  1,665

  840

  1,672

  834

  1,696

  832

  1,642

  811

  1,637

  846

  1,688

  860

  South West region

  1,043

  387

  1,048

  388

  1,078

  409

  1,068

  410

  1,094

  433

  1,103

  456

  West Midlands region

  1,200

  468

  1,191

  482

  1,191

  485

  1,212

  509

  1,212

  483

  1,299

  511

  North West region

  1,412

  609

  1,394

  580

  1,426

  618

  1,403

  604

  1,412

  631

  1,426

  650

  Wales

  587

  244

  598

  246

  593

  240

  584

  246

  575

  242

  598

  258

  Part-time3

  Northern region

  21

  221

  23

  242

  22

  235

  24

  249

  22

  258

  25

  251

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  34

  397

  47

  415

  48

  420

  45

  430

  58

  442

  53

  438

  East Midlands region

  30

  283

  42

  320

  38

  327

  41

  359

  48

  337

  47

  341

  East Anglia region

  21

  162

  20

  173

  19

  170

  23

  167

  29

  175

  25

  205

  South East region

  167

  1,210

  224

  1,368

  223

  1,392

  204

  1,392

  231

  1,453

  264

  1,472

  of which Greater London

  63

  422

  82

  446

  79

  486

  79

  473

  89

  485

  99

  470

  South West region

  45

  348

  51

  380

  58

  405

  58

  397

  69

  431

  81

  437

  West Midlands region

  36

  365

  37

  376

  48

  381

  53

  399

  53

  431

  58

  442

  North West region

  46

  453

  58

  491

  59

  493

  59

  507

  66

  495

  77

  530

  Wales

  13

  164

  22

  184

  21

  192

  26

  204

  30

  196

  32

  204

  On Government employment and training programmes

  Northern region

  16

  11

  16

  —1

  19

  13

  23

  11

  30

  19

  31

  17

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  22

  15

  18

  10

  29

  12

  33

  13

  36

  20

  36

  19

  East Midlands region

  14

  10

  16

  10

  20

  —1

  21

  11

  24

  12

  25

  16

  East Anglia region

  —1

  —1

  —1

  —1

  10

  —1

  —1

  —1

  —1

  —1

  12

  —1

  South East region

  47

  36

  36

  28

  40

  31

  45

  25

  45

  25

  49

  34

  of which Greater London

  14

  11

  13

  —1

  11

  12

  15

  12

  19

  —1

  18

  14

  578
  (4) what was the total number of full-time female employees in employment in Scotland for each of the years June 1979 to June 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is shown in the table. Estimates of the number of part-time male employees are not available for each year, but the censuses of employment record some 0.06 million male part-time employees in employment for each of the years 1978, 1981 and 1984.

  Employees in employment in Scotland (thousands)

  Year (at June)

  Males all

  Females

  full-time

  part-time

  1979

  1,205·2

  565·2

  331·9

  1980

  1,186·3

  561·2

  334·7

  1981

  1,127·8

  537·7

  336·3

  1982

  1,090·2

  522·7

  337·3

  1983

  1,060·4

  501·4

  337·3

  1984

  1,043·3

  510·7

  347·2

  1985

  1,039·4

  502·3

  362·1

  1986

  1,021·3

  501·1

  364·8

  1987

  1,009·5

  504·0

  378·4

  1988

  1,020·5

  525·8

  382·6

  Notes:

  (1) These estimates may be revised when the results of the 1987 Census of Employment become available.

  (2) Not adjusted for seasonal variation.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people in(a) full-time employment and (b) part-time employment, by sex, for each of the standard regions, for each of the years 1983 to 1988 based on the labour force survey.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the table:
  579

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19884

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  South West region

  17

  10

  16

  —1

  17

  10

  22

  12

  17

  14

  27

  15

  West Midlands region

  20

  12

  20

  13

  34

  20

  36

  18

  38

  21

  29

  24

  North West region

  29

  20

  31

  20

  33

  19

  36

  13

  50

  29

  48

  27

  Wales

  13

  —1

  12

  —1

  18

  —1

  15

  —1

  23

  14

  26

  11

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  2 Full/part-split is only available for employees and self employed, not all persons on Government employment and training programmes are asked the appropriate question.

  3 Based on respondent's own assessment.

  4 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people aged over 16 years who are (i) full-time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) self-employed and (iv) on Government

  Full and part-lime employees, self-employed and Government employment and training programmes, by region Spring estimates

  Thousands

  Persons aged 16 and over

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  Full-time1 employees

  Northern region

  865

  830

  813

  832

  845

  852

  Yorks and Humberside region

  1,395

  1,380

  1,360

  1,343

  1,335

  1,361

  East Midlands region

  1,188

  1,189

  1,160

  1,179

  1,159

  1,211

  East Anglia region

  556

  559

  563

  581

  588

  605

  South East region

  5,449

  5,462

  5,470

  5,465

  5,414

  5,623

  —of which Greater London

  2,250

  2,211

  2,205

  2,143

  2,127

  2,192

  South West region

  1,223

  1,199

  1,253

  1,230

  1,258

  1,269

  West Midlands region

  1,501

  1,490

  1,504

  1,548

  1,502

  1,573

  North West region

  1,808

  1,739

  1,803

  1,766

  1,790

  1,812

  Wales

  722

  712

  716

  702

  706

  739

  Part-time1 employees

  Northern region

  225

  249

  238

  256

  260

  260

  Yorks and Humberside region

  405

  426

  424

  447

  459

  455

  East Midlands region

  290

  328

  337

  364

  346

  357

  East Anglia region

  165

  172

  169

  178

  179

  204

  South East region

  1,246

  1,409

  1,441

  1,416

  1,474

  1,529

  —of which Greater London

  443

  472

  504

  495

  505

  503

  South West region

  349

  377

  402

  396

  443

  459

  West Midlands region

  373

  381

  395

  421

  447

  453

  North West region

  469

  507

  508

  521

  515

  560

  Wales

  163

  190

  195

  215

  204

  218

  Self-employed

  Northern region

  92

  100

  121

  111

  121

  123

  Yorks and Humberside region

  177

  207

  233

  223

  240

  235

  East Midlands region

  168

  172

  169

  181

  209

  213

  East Anglia region

  98

  116

  118

  109

  130

  146

  South East region

  790

  927

  975

  986

  1,131

  1,163

  —of which Greater London

  298

  352

  384

  368

  425

  423

  South West region

  251

  291

  296

  307

  324

  349

  West Midlands region

  195

  214

  207

  204

  230

  284

  North West region

  244

  276

  286

  286

  298

  310

  Wales

  123

  148

  135

  143

  132

  135

  On Government employment and training programmes

  Northern region

  27

  23

  33

  34

  48

  47

  Yorks and Humberside region

  38

  28

  41

  46

  57

  55

  East Midlands region

  24

  25

  29

  32

  36

  42

  East Anglia region

  12

  11

  16

  10

  11

  17

  South East region

  83

  64

  71

  70

  71

  82

  —of which Greater London

  25

  22

  23

  27

  27

  33

  South West region

  27

  24

  27

  34

  31

  42

  West Midlands region

  32

  32

  54

  54

  59

  53

  North West region

  49

  51

  52

  50

  79

  74

  Wales

  21

  19

  26

  23

  37

  36

  Source: Labour Force Surveys

  1 Based on respondent's own assessment

  2 Preliminary results (1988 only)

  580
  employment and training schemes, based on the labour force survey, in each of the standard regions and Wales, for each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr Lee
  Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the revised numbers of approved places allocated under employment training; what are the area budgets for the programme; and what are the allocations of supplementary grant, for each training agency area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Up to 265,000 employment training places have been allocated for 1989–90. Detailed area plans have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of employment training places occupied, by sex, in each of the standard regions and Wales at the latest date for which the information is available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 19 May 1989: Information about the numbers of men and women on employment training is not available separately. The number of those entering the programme and the proportions of men and women are given in the table.

  Employment training entrants

  Region

  Entrants to 12 May

  Men1 Per cent.

  Women1 Per cent.

  South East

  17,200

  65

  35

  London

  26,400

  59

  41

  South West

  16,200

  68

  32

  West Midlands

  33,200

  69

  31

  East Midlands and Eastern

  23,400

  72

  28

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  41,200

  74

  26

  North West

  44,900

  72

  28

  Northern

  30,500

  75

  25

  Wales

  21,800

  71

  29

  1 Proportions of men and women for period September—end March.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost for each urban development corporation so far in relation to the relocation of firms under the following headings(a) compensation for land and buildings, (b) disturbance and removal costs and (c) additional payments.

  Mr. Trippier
  A full, detailed breakdown is not readily available. But total expenditures to date on relocation of firms are as follows: LDDC £8·4 million, black country DC £3·4 million, Trafford park DC £1·4 million, Merseyside DC £0·7 million, Leeds DC £0·2 million.

  Empty Residential Properties
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the number of empty residential properties owned by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. As at 1 April 1989, 38 of the 433 residential properties owned by the Department of the Environment were empty. Of these only 13 are surplus to requirements and these are in process of disposal on the open market.
  582
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek guidance from local authorities and housing associations on the use of empty residential property possessed by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) earlier today.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue guidance to Government Departments on the use of Government-owned empty residential property.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to bring empty Government-owned residential property into use.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on Government policy concerning empty residential property in its possession.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department takes every opportunity to advise other Government Departments on the best use of their residential property and to draw to their attention the need to bring empty residential property back into use as early as possible.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of empty properties belonging to his Departmenst is suitable for use as temporary accommodation by homeless people.

  Mr. Chope
  At present there are no empty properties owned by the Department of the Environment 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 they are offered first to the local housing authority and then to a housing association.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of properties owned by his Department and suitable for residential accommodation has been empty for more than six months.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) earlier today. The 38 empty properties represent 8·7 per cent. of the total residential property owned by my Department.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a list of all the empty residential property owned by his Department.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will provide a table showing by region of England and Wales the number and percentage of empty residential property owned by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  A list showing all empty residential property owned by the Department of the Environment by region, number and percentage of total stock as at 1 April 1989, is set out.
  583

  Region

  Number

  Percentage

  Address

  Scotland

  11

  2·5

  Custom House, Campbeltown, Argyll (two units)

  George Street, Dunoon, Argyll

  Hamilton House, Glasgow

  Veterinary Research Station, Lasswade, Midlothian (two units)

  86 Lomond Road, Wemyss Bay, Inverclyde

  9 Windsor Street, Shotts, Motherwell

  52, 54, 56 School Road, Peterhead, Banss Buchan (three units)

  North East

  3

  0·7

  Hawkills Estate, Easingwold Hambleton (two units)

  Coastguard Station, Redcar, Lanbaurgh

  North West

  1

  0·2

  Courts of Justice, Manchester

  Eastern

  2

  0·4

  26 London Road, Brentwood

  Coastguard Station, Felixstowe, Suffolk Coastal

  London

  1

  0·2

  173 Ashley Gardens, Westminster

  South West

  8

  1·9

  Fire Services College, Moreton-in-the-Marsh, Cotswold (four units)

  Strand House, Isle of Scilly

  Shapwick Wireless Depot, Bridgewater, Sedgemoor

  South East

  12

  2·8

  Osborne Estate, East Cowes, Medina (twelve units)

  38

  8·7

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to release property belonging to his Department, which has been empty for more than a year and is suitable for residential accommodation, for use by young people who are at present homeless.

  Mr. Chope
  At present there are no empty properties suitable for residential accommodation owned by the Department of the Environment which could be made available for use by homeless young people.

  Empty residential properties owned by my Department for which there is no further Government use are put on the open market for sale. If, because of legal restrictions, they cannot be sold or sold within six months they are offered first to the local housing authority and then to a housing association.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek guidance from the local authority organisations on how best to use the empty property owned by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) earlier today.

  Empty Public Sector Housing
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding empty public sector housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  Apart from occasional correspondence, we have received some recent representations on empty public sector housing in the context of our homelessness review. They emphasise the contribution these properties could make to the relief of housing pressures and the need for all public sector landlords to manage their stock efficiently.

  Green Lanes and Bridleways
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to protect green lanes and bridleways from use by motorised vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is already unlawful, by virtue of section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to drive a motor vehicle on a bridleway. I am aware, however, of concern about legal, but irresponsible and inconsiderate, use by motor vehicles of byways and green lanes. Powers are available to highway authorities to prevent this but my Department is monitoring this situation closely and I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport if I consider further legislation necessary.

  Water Authority Land
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the rights of access, by members of the public, to water authority owned land.

  Mr. Ridley
  After enactment of the Water Bill, the National Rivers Authority and the water and sewerage companies will be under the same statutory duties as the present water authorities in respect of public access and amenity on water industry land.

  CFCs
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects that the inessential use of chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols will be phased out in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Members of the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association have stated that by the end of this year 90 per cent. of aerosols in this country will be free of chlorofluorocarbons. The remaining 10 per cent. is accounted for by medical and some industrial aerosols for which suitable substitutes are not yet available.
  585
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the labelling of aerosol cans as ozone friendly.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I welcome the decision of the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association to recommend to its members that all aerosols be labelled, so as to indicate whether or not they contain ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons.

  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities there are in the United Kingdom for destroying chlorofluorocarbons in an environmentally safe way; and whether he has any plans to improve upon present arrangements.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: There are very limited facilities currently available in the United Kingdom for incineration of liquefied chlorofluorocarbons and, as yet, no practical methods for destroying foam in an environmentally satisfactory method. The best way forward is to encourage industry to minimise the use of CFCs, and to recycle where practicable. I shall keep disposal arrangements under review in the light of further consideration by the parties to the Montreal protocol.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pensioner households he estimates will gain under the community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  I estimate that nearly 70 per cent. of pensioner households will pay less with the community charge than they would with rates, and 83 per cent. of single pensioner households will pay less.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the president of the Football League to discuss the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Ridley
  My hon. Friend and I met the chairman of the Football Association and the president of the Football League this morning to discuss the question of all-seater stadiums.

  Shared Equity Housing Schemes
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the removal of the right to buy out the freehold from shared equity housing schemes.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received a number of representations, mainly from local authorities and housing associations.

  Greater Manchester (Housing)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the condition of housing in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Trippier
  Responsibility for the condition of housing in Greater Manchester, as elsewhere, rests with the owners. For properties in private ownership, grants may be available to help to improve them. Where the 586
  owner is the local authority, my Department's estate action unit continues to provide significant assistance in improving housing conditions on rundown estates.

  East Lancashire Railway
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to Ramsbottom in order to examine the impact of the east Lancashire railway on the development of the local economy.

  Mr. Trippier
  I visited Summerseat, near Ramsbottom, in February of this year to speak at the launch of the "Irwell Valley Adventure" in which the east Lancashire railway features as a major tourist attraction. I am pleased both with the progress of the railway restoration project itself and the impact it is having on the local economy.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of new cars are now capable of running on unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is estimated that 80 per cent. of new cars registered in Great Britain in 1988 could be using unleaded petrol. Of these 33 per cent. could use unleaded petrol straight away and the remaining 47 per cent. after adjustment. Estimates for January 1989 indicate that more than half of the cars currently being registered can now use unleaded petrol without adjustment.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for demand for unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in demand for unleaded petrol since the Budget; what proposals he has for encouraging the wider use of lead-free petrol; and what has been the response of other EEC member states to Britain's initiatives to promote lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intendes to promote further measures to encourage the use of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's campaign to increase the use of unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are firmly committed to the speedy changeover to unleaded petrol. Last year the average uptake of the fuel amounted to only 1 per cent. of the total petrol sales. Following the significant duty differential introduced by the Chancellor in his Budget this year together with the ongoing work of the unleaded petrol group, which I chair, our recent major television advertising campaign and a range of publicity initiatives by the Department, uptake is estimated to have risen to over 15 per cent. We shall continue to campaign vigorously to increase sales still further.

  We led the way in securing agreement in the EEC on the introduction of this environment-friendly fuel. Britain now has the second largest duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol within the EEC and is in the top four countries for uptake.
  587
  The changeover to unleaded petrol now is important. It is good for the environment, it makes good financial sense and it paves the way for the introduction of stricter EC vehicle emission standards to which we are committed.

  Water Industry
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has given about the most effective way of transferring the water industry into the private sector.

  Mr. Howard
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated in its report on Southern water authority in April 1985 that it did not regard the existing private statutory companies as a useful model for the privatised industry. It took the view that the statutory form of regulation, which limits profits and dividends, conspicuously failed to provide adequate safeguards for the consumer and a profit incentive to management to reduce costs and increase efficiency. I am confident that the Water Bill's chosen route to privatisation on plc lines offers a far more attractive future for the industry, the consumer and the investor.

  Housing Estates
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for those estates no longer included in the housing action trust proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will release money to those areas originally designated to be part of a housing action trust, which are not now to be included.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for the local authorities concerned to decide, in consultation with their tenants, what future action to take on these estates. The work done by the HAT consultants will assist the Department in assessing any bids for HIP resources.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet a deputation from the Ramblers Association to discuss the maintenance of free accessibility to land for the general public following privatisation of the water authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I met the Ramblers Association to discuss these matters on 6 March 1989.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the alleged illegality of the water authorities' advertising campaign.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been unable to trace any representations on this point.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Cumbria county council and the Lake District planning board on the privatisation of water authority assets.
  588
  Mr. Howard
  We have received a number of representations from the Lake District planning board about the composition of the regional rivers advisory committees of the National Rivers Authority, consultation arrangements between the national park authorities and the water industry, and the sale of non-operational land. The board's views have been carefully considered. I am not aware of any representations from Cumbria county council.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how it intends to finance the main flotation costs of the privatisation of the water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  Token provision for this new service has been sought in the main supply estimate for class X vote 9. A supplementary estimate will be presented when the sale has been completed and the final costs are known. Pending approval of these estimates, urgent expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  New Towns
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received regarding the seven new town submissions affecting Appleton Cross and Grappenhall Heys; and what proportion of them were in favour of the developments.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received 2,095 proformas and letters about these submissions, most of which were opposed to the proposals. I have also received three petitions against the proposals containing in total some 7,000 signatures.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many county councils in England currently include in their proposed revised structure plan schemes for building new towns in excess of 10,000 people on existing green belt land; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Chope
  I know of no such schemes, other than that proposed in the south-east Dorset structure plan first alteration, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish modifications to the South-East Dorset alteration shortly.

  Right to Buy
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the use of the delay procedure, since its introduction in March, by tenants wishing to exercise their right to buy their council home.

  Mr. Trippier
  A large number of tenants exercising the right to buy and held up by their landlord have sought advice on the delay procedure, and over 15,000 forms have been sent out, both to tenants direct and to hon. Members and tenants' advisers. But we have no precise information since there is no requirement to inform the Department when delay notices are served.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against valuations under the right-to-buy scheme were made by Greenwich council tenants during(a) 1988 and (b) the first three months of 1989; and in how many cases the original valuation was reduced on appeal.
  589
  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 369 tenants of the council requested determinations of value by the district valuer in 1988, the value determined being lower than the council's in 360 cases. Two hundred and eleven tenants have requested determinations in the first three months of this year, the determination being lower than the original valuation in all the 114 cases dealt with so far.

  Water Charges
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the provisions for the future control of water charges set out in the Water Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on Monday 22 May 1989.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total area of land which has been removed from the green belt during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  The precise information requested is not available, but the extent of approved green belt in England has more than doubled from 1·8 million acres to 4·5 million acres since 1979.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions he has given to planning authorities to prevent erosion into the green belt; whether the importance of presumption against development in the green belt still applies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Local planning authorities are expected to have regard to the very restrictive planning policies that continue to apply in the green belt, as set out in the Department's planning policy guidance note 2, published in January 1988: a copy is in the Library. As the guidance makes plain, there is a general assumption against inappropriate development in the green belt.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the need for local housing authorities situated within the green belt to make provisions, on an exceptional basis, for low-cost housing in their rural area; and what advice he has offered.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the first instance it is for local authorities to decide where new housing can be accommodated, taking account of existing planning policies and, where applicable, the relaxation I announced on 3 February for small developments to meet local needs in rural areas. The Government have made provision for a substantial increase in the total resources available to housing associations for subsidised rented housing and for low-cost home ownership, and an increased share of that total will be allocated to smaller rural communities and to those areas where high house prices make access to owner-occupation more difficult.

  Low-cost Housing Scheme
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he proposes to recommend to local authorities and housing associations to ensure that the initial benefit of a reduced price available to the purchaser of a house under the low-cost housing scheme can be passed on to subsequent purchasers.
  590
  Mr. Trippier
  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside recently announced that we have in mind a scheme where housing associations will have a pre-emptive right to buy back a shared ownership property at full market value when the owner sells:

  (i) where the house is in a rural area where replacement of a shared ownership dwelling may be difficult; or

  (ii) where a private landowner has contributed a site on condition that it be retained for low-cost housing.

  This repurchase arrangement enables the association to resell with the benefit of a reduced price, without restricting the right of the shared owner to become the full owner of his home.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many countries have agreed to sign the Montreal protocol following the ozone conference in London held in March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the "London saving the ozone layer conference" 20 countries said that they would become parties to the Montreal protocol, and a further 14 said that they would give serious consideration to doing so.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the proposed re-organisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received some representations mainly from or on behalf of local authorities. They have been concerned primarily with the need to maintain existing lines of communication with inspectorate staff following implementation of the reorganisation proposals.

  One of the objectives of the proposed reorganisation is to produce a more effective deployment of resources. The importance of effective links with local authorities is recognised and maintaining communication with them will be an essential element in developing the reorganisation proposals.

  Young Persons (Housing)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure that advice is available to a young person without a parental home looking to be housed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  I can answer only for England. In the current year my Department will provide grants totalling nearly £700,000 to over 20 voluntary housing advice agencies. Many of these provide assistance to young people without a parental home.

  European Council of Environment Ministers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the business of the forthcoming meeting of the European Council of Environment Ministers, which is to be held on 8 June.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the
  591
  business of the forthcoming meeting of the European Council of Environment Ministers, which is to be held on 8 June.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the business of the forthcoming meeting of the European Council of Environment Ministers, which is to be held on 8 June.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for the Spanish presidency to decide on the agenda for meetings of the European Council of Ministers. It has not yet confirmed an agenda for the European Council meeting of Environment Ministers on 8 June.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses and how many flats are owned by local authorities; and what new proposals he has to extend the opportunity for them to become owner-occupied.

  Mr. Trippier
  In April 1988 local authorities in England owned some 4·5 million dwellings, about a third of them flats or maisonettes. Following the new discount scale for flats introduced in January 1987 sales of flats increased from 9 per cent. to 17·6 per cent. as a proportion of all sales. Tenants of both houses and flats have recently been helped to buy their homes by an increase in the maximum discount to £50,000 and by a new power to have rent deducted from the purchase price if the landlord delays the sale.

  Lambeth (Council Housing)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses owned by Lambeth council are currently empty.

  Mr. Trippier
  At 1 April 1988, the latest date for which figures are currently available there were 1,156 empty properties owned by the London borough of Lambeth. There are no separate figures for houses alone.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants in Lambeth were waiting for their applications to buy their homes to be processed at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Trippier
  On 30 April 1989, according to figures supplied by Lambeth, 2,086 applicants were waiting for the council to take the next step in processing the sale of their homes, either by confirming the tenant's right-to-buy or providing a valuation.

  Water Bill
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what aspects will be covered in further leaflets on the Water Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  Possible subjects for future leaflets on the Water Bill are land, access and recreation; and bathing waters.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to amend the Water Bill so that privatisation of the industry is based on the statutory water companies model.
  592
  Mr. Howard
  No. The 1986 White Paper "Privatisation of Water Industry in England and Wales" explained that we had rejected the statutory company model because it was an outdated method of operating a business. The controls on dividend and reserves do not give any incentive to achieve greater efficiency. We firmly believe that the plc company model with controls on prices and standards of service will provide a better and more efficient service, arid will enable the privatised companies to develop in ways that will benefit their customers and investors alike.

  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action was taken to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974(a) between its enactment and May 1979 and (b) since May 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The main provisions of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were implemented between July 1984 and October 1986. These provided for more effective protection of inland surface and underground waters, the extension of controls to cover all coastal and estuarial waters and public involvement, for the first time, in the water pollution control system.

  These provisions are to be re-enacted, and where appropriate, strengthened, in the Water Bill.

  Prior to May 1979, only five relatively minor sections of part II were brought into force.

  Housing (Ballots)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce a timetable for ballots in proposed housing action trust areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  Ballots will not take place until we are satisfied that tenants have had time to consider fully the consultants' reports on the areas and to put forward their own ideas for improving their estates.

  Sports Facilities (Urban Areas)
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department is monitoring the number of outdoor recreational sports facilities in the urban areas of England.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally. However, the regional offices of the Sports Council maintain records on the major sports facilities within their regions and the Sports Council is in the process of building up a sports facilities database for England.

  Rent Arrears (Lambeth)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of council rent arrears in Lambeth at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Trippier
  A table showing the rent arrears outstanding to all English local authorities as at 1 April 1988 is in the Library.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage home ownership has increased since 1979.
  593
  Mr. Trippier
  Estimates of numbers and proportions of dwellings in owner occupation in England in December 1979 and December 1988 appear in Table 2·22 of "Housing and Construction Statistics, Part 2", volume 36, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Developments (Restrictive Covenants)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on covenants to restrict development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend receives three or four applications each year under schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to discharge or modify agreements made under section 34 of the Town and

  Works in breach of consent

  Water authority

  Number

  Number tested

  Number

  Percentage of works tested

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Anglian

  782

  760

  775

  774

  754

  748

  309

  260

  208

  40

  34

  28

  Northumbrian

  196

  182

  178

  196

  182

  178

  37

  27

  26

  19

  15

  15

  North West

  458

  448

  441

  458

  448

  441

  62

  55

  43

  14

  12

  10

  Severn-Trent

  773

  753

  808

  762

  742

  751

  179

  160

  112

  23

  22

  15

  Southern

  282

  274

  273

  282

  274

  271

  54

  39

  41

  19

  14

  15

  South West

  226

  226

  232

  188

  219

  228

  55

  65

  68

  29

  30

  30

  Thames

  374

  382

  378

  374

  379

  378

  67

  70

  60

  18

  18

  16

  Welsh

  803

  764

  710

  668

  611

  650

  112

  108

  107

  17

  18

  17

  Wessex

  272

  272

  272

  272

  270

  272

  39

  39

  16

  14

  11

  6

  Yorkshire

  380

  360

  360

  380

  351

  354

  88

  74

  61

  23

  21

  17

  England and Wales

  4,546

  4,421

  4,427

  4,354

  4,230

  4,271

  1,002

  887

  742

  23

  21

  17

  Water Quality (Barnsley)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has recently received regarding the quality of water supplies in the Barnsley area.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Structure Plans (White Paper)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Oxfordshire concerning the White Paper on structure plans.

  Mr. Howard
  Representations have been received from Oxfordshire county council and South Oxfordshire district council, suggesting some minor modifications to our proposals for the future development plans. These comments will be considered, along with those received from other organisations and authorities, as draft legislation is prepared to implement the White Paper proposals.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has of the relative effect of(a) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax and (b) the community charge on an average ward sister.

  Mr. Gummer
  Last year ward sister's earning £13,000 and living in properties valued at £40,000 would have paid on average about £450 in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax compared to £246 with the community charge.
  594
  Country Planning Act 1932 which restrict the planning, development or use of land; some of these applications are opposed.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage treatment works failed their discharge consents(a) in May 1979 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Howard
  Information on sewage treatment works failing their consents was not collected by the Government in May 1979. Numbers of sewage treatment works in each water authority area in England and Wales that have numerical discharge consent conditions, numbers tested and non-compliance in 1986 and 1987, together with the figures returned by authorities for 1988 are as follows.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any representations to introduce a local income tax instead of the rating system and the community charge; and what would be the amount payable in local income tax by a man on average earnings.

  Mr. Gummer
  Not surprisingly I have received hardly any representations in favour of a local income tax. Based on 1988–89 figures for local authority spending, the average local income tax rate needed in England would have been 6·4p in the pound. If the tax were at that level in a particular local authority area, the payment for a person on male average earnings, with only the single person's tax allowance, would have been about £650.

  Football Identity Card Scheme
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with Lord Justice Taylor regarding the introduction of his Bill on football club membership cards.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Atmospheric Lead
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of lead in the atmosphere is caused by lead in petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 1 January 1986 the permitted lead content of petrol was reduced from 0·4g per litre to 0·15g per litre. The Warren Spring laboratory has been monitoring the effects of the reduction on the concentration of lead in the atmosphere for the
  595
  Department. Its estimate, based on this work, is that currently 75 per cent. of the lead in the air is derived from lead in petrol.

  Sewage Works Discharge Consents
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of applications by water authorities for the relaxation of sewage works discharge consents.

  Mr. Howard
  On 7 December at column 199, I announced a capital programme costing around £1 billion to bring sewage treatment works into compliance with their discharge consents by March 1992. Water authorities may apply for time-limited discharge consents for these works to regularise current performance while improvements take place. Some 785 such applications have been received from English water authorities. A list of those sewage works for which these applications have been made has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Plastic Packaging
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discourage the use of non-recyclable plastic packaging.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for industry to develop products that meeet the requirements of consumers, bearing in mind energy use, the need to protect goods and prevent wastage.

  Housing Action Trust, Sunderland
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his most recent proposals concerning the designation of a housing action trust in Sunderland.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend announced on 16 March that detailed consultation would be carried out with tenants on the proposal to designate a housing action trust in Sunderland. This consultation process is under way.

  Sports Facilities (Privatisation)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the effect of the privatisation of the management of sports facilities upon the public use of swimming baths and playing fields.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A number of local authorities have put the management of their leisure facilities out to competition. My Department does not have complete information on the impact of those decisions. However, to take one example, after eight months of private sector management at three leisure centres owned by Westminster city council, public use has increased on average by over 60 per cent.

  Local Authority Housing Programme
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about the proposed new arrangements for capital receipts and the impact these will have on local authority housing programmes; and if he will make a statement.
  596
  Mr. Trippier
  Over 450 responses were received to my Department's consultation paper "Capital Expenditure and Finance" and a number of further representations have been received following the introduction of the Local Government and Housing Bill. More than half of these have commented on the proposed arrangements for capital receipts in the new capital finance system. Those arrangements will ensure prudential provision for debt redemption when local authority assets are disposed of. They will also allow the Government to target resources efficiently on need, including the need for local authority housing programmes.

  Tin Cans (Recycling)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of tin cans are currently recycled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is estimated that about 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's consumption of tinplated steel cans was recycled in 1988.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits and inspections were carried out by the air pollution inspectors during the year 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the year 1988–89, the air pollution inspectors made 8,542 visits and inspections.

  Airport, Tinsley Park
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will change his decision not to call in for his determination the proposal for a STOL airport at Tinsley park, Sheffield.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The matter was given full and careful consideration before the Secretary of State reached his decision.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with organisations concerned about rights of access to the countryside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 10 January I met a delegation from the Ramblers Association at which a range of topics relating to access to the countryside were discussed. I also met representatives of the Country Landowners Association on 21 February. Officials are in regular contact with all the organisations concerned with countryside access.

  Sports (Drugs)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the eradication of drug taking by British sports competitors.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council funds the drug control and testing centre and conducts doping controls on behalf of and in co-operation with the governing bodies. In April 1988, following a report by Sebastian Coe and
  597
  myself, the council introduced more rigorous procedures for doping control requiring random testing of competitors. This includes testing out of competition and collection of samples by independent sampling officers. I have proposed a European convention on the use of drugs in sport based on these procedures. This will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of European Sports Ministers in Reykjavik on 31 May and 1 June.

  Sport (Private Investment)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the Sports Council in seeking to attract private sector investment into sport.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Private sector investment in sport in 1988–89 was £180 million. The Sports Council has played an important role in promoting the development of sponsorship.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount spending by his Department on environmental research has increased over the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ridley
  Spending by my Department on environmental research, covering research on environmental protection, water, planning and local government, has increased by £7·8 million from £21·8 million in 1984–85 to £29·6 million in 1988–89.

  Recreational Land
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the amount of recreational land currently available for general community use; what was the comparable figure 10 years ago; and what steps he is taking to monitor the situation and ensure that the local authorities are able to provide for increased public participation in sport and recreation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally. However, some local studies have been undertaken and these suggest that in a number of areas gains in provision outweigh losses. The regional councils for sport and recreation work with the local authorities to increase participation in sport and to monitor the provision of recreational land. The regional councils seek to ensure that well used recreational land is retained for that purpose.

  Marine Nature Reserves
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many areas have been identified by the Nature Conservancy Council as suitable for marine nature reserves; and when these reserves will be established.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nature Conservancy Council has identified seven sites that, in its opinion, have the potential to be designated as marine nature reserves. One of these sites, Lundy Island, was designated as a marine nature reserve in November 1986. In view of the further scientific work that will be required, and the extensive consultation procedures that form a necessary part of the designation process, it is not possible to forecast when the other reserves might be established.
  598
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many marine nature reserves have been established since the enactment of the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One marine nature reserve at Lundy Island, has been designated under the 1981 Act so far. Proposals for a second MNR, at Skomer and the Marloes peninsula, are currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Planning and Development Policies
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to review planning and development control policies for the conurbations of England and Wales with a view to possible legislative adjustments.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).

  Denis Wild-type Houses
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce progress in encouraging building societies to advance mortgage loans on Denis Wild-type houses.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 April at column 584.

  Schools (Sports)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the changes in the numbers of schools participating in swimming and sports activities in recent years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.

  Allotments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by year for the last 10 years, how many hectares of(a) statutory and (b) temporary allotment sites have been granted outline planning permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not available.

  Archaeological Investigations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of Government funding is set aside to fund archaeological investigations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for English Heritage to determine, within its overall resources of grant-in-aid from this Department and other sources of income. In its budget of £72,399 million for the current financial year it has allocated £7·2 million for archaeological investigations and recording.

  Ancient Monuments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites where ancient monuments have been covered by planning decisions.
  599
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has no comprehensive information about the details of planning decisions made by local planning authorities. Information about planning decisions made by the Secretary of State, or decisions on scheduled monument consent applications, which have led to archaeological sites being covered by development could only be assembled at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Action Trust, Lambeth
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much open space is included in the proposed HAT area in Lambeth; and how much public open space will remain if the consultants' proposals for the HAT in this area are implemented.

  Mr. Trippier
  The consultants' proposals are illustrative only and were developed simply to give an indication of what could be done to the estates and at what cost. Once established, a trust would be under a duty to consult those who live in its area about its proposals.

  There is an estimated 5·0 Ha of open space in the proposed trust in Lambeth comprising approximately 2·7 Ha of public open space and approximately 2·3 Ha of semi-private open space. The illustrative proposals would increase the area of public open space to a total of approximately 3·3 Ha and provide additional private gardens.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to publish amended reports correcting the errors in the documents published by his department in March from the consultants appointed to study the proposed HATs in Southwark, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets and Sunderland.

  Mr. Trippier
  If the hon. Member knows of any errors in the consultant's reports about the proposed housing action trust areas in Southwark, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets and Sunderland published on 16 March, I should be grateful if he would write to me.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his answer to the hon. Member for Hammersmith of 23 March,Official Report, column 780, what further expenditure on consultancy or other work related to the proposed HAT areas he has agreed to; what are the briefs given to the consultants; which consultants have been appointed; and what is the estimated cost of the work they have been commissioned to do in (a) Lambeth, (b) Southwark, (c) Sandwell, (d) Leeds and (e) Sunderland.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed consultants to discuss the proposals contained in the reports of the proposed trust areas published on 16 March. The objectives of the consultation exercise are:

  (a) to explain to tenants, residents and other local interests the findings in the consultants' reports and the illustrative proposals put forward for improving the areas of the proposed trust estates.

  (b) to consult tenants, residents and other local interests to establish their own views, ideas and suggestions about what could be done to improve their estates, including their reactions to the proposals contained in the reports.

  600

  (c) to produce reports in t he form of commentaries on the key proposals contained in the original reports indicating tenant priorities; their attitudes towards the proposals, including their own suggestions for improvement; and the effect they would have on the prospects for achieving the primary objects of a Trust as set out in section 63 of the Housing Act 1988.

  The consultants are led by Peat Marwick McLintock in Sunderland, by PIC Ltd. in Lambeth and Southwark and by PIEDA in Leeds. In Sandwell, the further study of the Cape Hill area by a consortium led by Price Waterhouse announced by my right hon. Friend in his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 16 March at column 322 is still under way. The costs of the contracts will remain commercially confidential until they have been completed.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to amend section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to provide that specified internal fixtures, including mirrors, be protected by the listing of a building.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under section 54(9) of the Act any object or structure fixed to a listed building either internally or externally is protected by the listed building controls in section 55, in so far as its removal, alteration or extension would affect the character of the building as one of special architectural or historic interest. We have no plans to extend the controls to cover moveable objects.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his reply of 13 April,Official Report, column 667, he will ask working group I of the United Nations environmental programme/world meteorological organisation inter-governmental panel on climate changes to make an interim report on the climatological consequences of felling and burning of rain forest in the Brazilian state of Para and eastern Amazonia in the first four months of 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The Government do not seek to interfere with the group's scientific work plan and reporting schedule agreed internationally by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. However, I understand that the hon. Member's particular concern about deforestation in eastern Amazonia is being addressed by the working group, which will report to the world climate conference in the autumn of 1990.

  Domestic Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 18 May to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley),Official Report, columns 262–64, he will publish a table showing in descending order the average domestic rate bill payable in each London borough in 1983–84 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information requested is listed below.

  Average domestic rate bills in London

  £

  1983–84

  Kensington and Chelsea

  712

  Westminster

  690

  Camden

  672

  601

  £

  Brent

  631

  City of London

  612

  Islington

  611

  Haringey

  608

  Southwark

  519

  Lambeth

  498

  Barnet

  492

  Hackney

  490

  Harrow

  476

  Lewisham

  461

  Greenwich

  453

  Tower Hamlets

  449

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  417

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  405

  Hounslow

  401

  Newham

  397

  Waltham Forest

  392

  Hillingdon

  389

  Merton

  386

  Havering

  381

  Bromley

  369

  Ealing

  361

  Enfield

  361

  Redbridge

  360

  Sutton

  356

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  350

  Bexley

  338

  Croydon

  329

  Wandsworth

  327

  Barking and Dagenham

  299

  1989–901

  Brent

  970

  Haringey

  906

  Westminster

  782

  Camden

  748

  Barnet

  713

  Islington

  677

  City of London

  658

  Hounslow

  657

  Ealing

  635

  Newham

  627

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  624

  Harrow

  612

  Hillingdon

  602

  Enfield

  590

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  586

  Waltham Forest

  583

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  582

  Sutton

  573

  Kensington and Chelsea

  550

  Hackney

  547

  Greenwich

  537

  Lambeth

  517

  Merton

  501

  Havering

  500

  Croydon

  499

  Lewisham

  483

  Bromley

  469

  Bexley

  459

  Southwark

  450

  Redbridge

  447

  Barking and Dagenham

  447

  Tower Hamlets

  419

  Wandsworth

  357

  1 Based on 1989–90 average rateable values.

  Planning
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of planning appeal decisions for each of the last five years; and on which occasions he over-ruled the advice of his inspectors.
  602
  Mr. Howard
  In the last five years a total of 81,992 planning appeals have been decided—78,669 by inspectors and 3,323 by the Secretary of State. In only 114 were the inspectors' recommendations not accepted.

  Archaeology Investigations
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on archaeology and development.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to developers to accommodate archaeological investigations in development briefs.

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Recent archaeological discoveries in London have highlighted the growing interest in our archaeological heritage.

  Very considerable progress has been made in recent years. In 1986 a code of practice was agreed between archaeologists and developers which led last year to developers voluntarily contributing some £14m towards archaeological investigations.

  The Government and English Heritage for their part must ensure that all those involved—local authoritities, local people, developers, businesses—have adequate information on the existing sources of expertise and on the relevant statutory and planning framework. We are proposing to issue new guidance this summer which will set out, amongst other things, guidelines on how archaeology should be handled in development plans and in development control decisions, the scope for prior archaeological evaluation before development, and the appropriate use of planning conditions for archaeological excavations.

  Chicken Farm, Stokeham, Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approve the article 4 direction served on him in relation to the proposed erection of buildings at the chicken farm, Start Point, Stokeham, South Devon.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment approved the article 4 direction in relation to land at Hambrook, Stokeham on 24 May and has informed South Hams district council.

  Drinking Water (House of Commons)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the date and details of the most recent analysis of drinking water supplied in the House of Commons, and the European Community maximum admissible concentration levels for sulphate, fluoride, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, conductivity and turbidity.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: Drinking water in the Palace of Westminster is taken direct from the Thames water authority's main supply. Sampling is therefore undertaken only when a specific need arises. The most recent testing on 14 March 1989 followed a complaint about an unpleasant taste in the water. The

  603
  laboratory of the Government chemist's tests confirmed that the samples were chemically and bacteriologically suitable for drinking.

  Substance/condition

  Source of sample

  EEC Maximum admissible concentration

  Members' cafeteria sink

  Members' cafeteria drinking water machine

  Sulphate as S04 (mg/e)

  66

  64

  250

  Fluoride (ug/l)

  200

  180

  1,500

  Potassium (mg/l)

  6·5

  6·5

  12

  Sodium (mg/l)

  34·9

  35·8

  150

  Magnesium (mg/l)

  6·0

  5·9

  50

  Iron (ug/l)

  18

  10

  200

  Manganese

  5

  5

  50

  Nickel (ug/l)

  —1

  —1

  50

  Conductivity (usiemans/cm at 20°)

  747

  599

  1,500

  Turbidity (NTU)

  0·62

  0·88

  4

  1 Not determined.

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

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 May. The
  604
  The concentration levels requested from the samples were as follows:

  September 1984 television advertising referred to, formed part of an overall information campaign to ensure council tenants in England and Wales knew about extensions of their rights under the Housing Act 1980, introduced by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984. The television campaign in the first two weeks of April this year was aimed at motivating motorists to adjust their cars in order to be able to use unleaded petrol.

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.

Remand Prisoners: Bail
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange for the courts to grant automatic bail after 110 days to persons still detained on remand.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government are progressively introducing limits on the period during which an accused may be held in custody awaiting trial. If the limits are exceeded, the accused is released on bail, unless the court allows an extension.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. Since he mentioned time-limits, will he say by how much the time-limits currently applied in Wales and 13 English counties have reduced the average time spent in custody before trial? Can he also say when the Government will announce a timetable for extending those time-limits to the rest of England?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is being done progressively. From 1st June the limits will be extended to 22 more English counties. With regard to the amount of time which has been saved, it is expected that there will be a saving of between 200 and 400 remand places.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on any one day there are estimated to be 850 prisoners on remand in the prisons of England and Wales who have been awaiting trial for more than six months? Is he also aware that it is estimated that of that figure more than 100 have been awaiting trial for over a year?
Does the noble Earl agree that this is a national scandal and a blot on the administration of justice which must be removed? Is he prepared to ask his right honourable friend to make a Statement to Parliament shortly after the Whitsun Recess in order that Parliament may have a definite timetable for the extension of the scheme to the rest of England, including London and the South-East, in addition to the areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says in general. As he rightly points out, there are a large number of cases which are held over for six months or sometimes a year. That is unusual. They are very often complicated cases, often with foreign involvement. My right
392
honourable friend is acutely conscious of that. A great deal is being done and has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked why the time-limits cannot be introduced in London and elsewhere. That requires quite a lot of planning and there are staff shortages in the CPS and other areas which mean that if the dates were to be introduced summarily they could not be put into practice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent experiments with electronic tagging are relevant to the mitigation of this problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, electronic monitoring of defendants is to be tested in field trials later this year. I think that we have to see how they go before we make a judgment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it would be a salutary discipline for the police and prosecution service if there were a statutory limit on the time a prisoner could be kept in custody on remand? Would it not be far better to extend the limits to the whole country with exceptions in certain cases in which a special application would have to be made and grounds for an exception proved?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course it would be salutary if that were introduced. That is why we are trying to do so. However, one cannot introduce such a change wholesale across the country at once. It has to be done gradually in order to allow the system to cope.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not the granting of automatic bail as is suggested in the Question going too far? Should it not to some extent depend upon the degree of co-operation from the people involved on all sides?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole purpose is that under the limits magistrates' courts will have 56 days in which to produce a person to summary trial; 70 days if no decision on the method of trial has been reached within the 56 days; or, alternatively, 70 days to committal. In the Crown Courts it is 112 days from committal to arraignment. That is what it is proposed should be introduced and has been introduced. If a case is not brought within those time-limits the prosecution can apply for an extension of the period during which the person can remain in custody. If that is not granted and arrangements have not been made for the person to be brought to trial by that date, he will be let out on bail.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what plans the Government have for the provision of additional bail hostels over and above those of which we have already been informed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, bail hostels are being provided at a considerable rate. I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly how many at the moment, but there is a degree of urgency about the matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, what is the position with regard to young persons? I understand from the magistrates of Hull that young people are being kept in the prison there three to a cell for 17 hours a day. Surely it would be better for such young people not to be in prison but in bail hostels or elsewhere.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not familiar with the situation in Hull, but I shall certainly find out and write to my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that, of those remanded in custody, 40 per cent. are either acquitted or given non-custodial sentences at their trial? Does not that point show the urgent need to reduce that evil part of our arrangements?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. Of course, we wish to see the matter dealt with as quickly as possible. What I am suggesting to the noble and learned Lord is that the system at the moment is highly congested. One cannot alter it by simply altering a date; one must ensure that the right processes and the staff are in place in order to make that change come about. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not a question of establishment and personnel, but a question of the good name of the administration of justice in this country? Must not a programme therefore be outlined, at least as a target, in order that that critical and dreadful situation with regard to the figures that I ventured to quote ceases?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that change will largely come about when those time limits are introduced. That is the purpose of introducing the time limits. I have tried to explain that they cannot be introduced all at once all over the country, but that they will be introduced as soon as possible.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we all accept that this is a difficult and complex matter, but will the noble Earl confirm that the Government are determined to limit the remand population, which is now over 20 per cent. of all prisoners, to the absolute minimum consistent with the Bail Act 1976?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Bail Act 1976 assumes that people will get bail other than in specified circumstances. It is our desire to see that, commensurate with proper safety, as few people as possible are kept on remand.

Refrigerators: CFC Recovery
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made in the United Kingdom for the safe disposal of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators discarded after use.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are aware of only one nationwide retailer of domestic refrigerators offering a collection and recycling service. Others are being encouraged to do the same. However, recycling services are provided by both the UK CFC manufacturers and by some refrigerator companies, and these are widely used for commercial and industrial refrigerators. The Warren Spring laboratory is also undertaking a study of the topic.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. However, will the Government encourage the establishment of a complete system throughout the country under which retired refrigerators would not be broken up, thereby releasing CFCs into the atmosphere? Instead, could not those CFCs be recycled or safely disposed of as necessary action to protect the ozone layer?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are some technical problems in recovering CFCs from refrigeration coolant material; but the Government are in close contact with the electrical industry to see what further progress can be made.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that 34,000 tonnes of CFCs are likely to be released into the atmosphere over the next 10 years? In view of the Prime Minister's concern about the subject, what resources are the Government prepared to put in to solve that problem?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that we should put the problem into perspective. It is only 3 per cent. of the total. Of that, only 1 per cent. of the UK total could be easily recoverable. The Government's record on initiatives to help industiy to recover CFCs is very good.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, should it not be a statutory requirement that any CFC-employing refrigerator marketed after a certain vesting date should be approved by an authority which certifies that it is of such a design that facilitates recycling rather than dispersal into the atmosphere? Should it not be an offence for anyone removing a refrigerator for resale, or whatever it may be, to fail to report it to the necessary authority?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the industry itself is certainly looking into the idea of better design for recovery. At the moment there are no plans to make the matter a statutory offence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us why the Government are so mealy-mouthed about the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury? Should that not be a statutory requirement?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at the moment the industry seems to be doing very well in bringing down the level of consumption of CFCs. At present, there is therefore no general requirement for there to be a statutory offence.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, if the Minister cannot respond more positively to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Robson regarding Government resources, perhaps I may ask him whether I am right in believing that one refrigeration firm, when supplying a new refrigerator, will at the same time make an allowance for the old one and undertake to dispose of it safely? If one firm can do that, would it not be helpful if all firms did it? Could the Government use their influence to bring that about?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The firm Bejam certainly runs a recycling service but I understand that all other United Kingdom based manufacturers—Electrolux, Hotpoint, LEC, Kelco and Norfrost—are committed to a programme of reduction. We shall see what they will do in the next few months.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, did I understand from the noble Lord's first reply to his noble friend that the free recovery scheme, which is operated by ICI among others, does not apply to domestic refrigerators? That was not quite clear. If it does apply, are not the Government able to stretch their apparently limitless budget for advertising to include advertising on this subject so that the public may be better informed about how to dispose of their own refrigerators?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at the moment there does not seem to be a great problem with commercial refrigerators. There is a great deal of publicity within the industry about stopping the leakage of CFCs. As I have already said, we are looking closely at the situation on domestic refrigerators and discussing it with the industry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to consider submitting to his right honourable friend in another place the very same proposition that was put forward a moment ago by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall certainly bring it to my right honourable friend's attention.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government do their best to inform the public that the insulating foam and the coolant in refrigerators are perfectly safe while they are sealed inside the refrigerator?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that that information is generally readily available, but if my noble friend has evidence to the contrary, I am sure that we shall be able to look into it.

"Working for Patients": Implementation Costs
3.2 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the cost of establishing and maintaining the administration of hospital and general practitioner services outlined in their White Paper Working for Patients.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government will be making available an extra £40 million in the current financial year to cover the additional work in the National Health Service and in the department to begin implementing the review. This brings the total available for implementation this year to over £82 million. None of the costs of the implementation will be to the detriment of patient care.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord will probably be aware that the resource management initiative has been welcomed largely by all sides in the health service. But is he aware that people working in the health service have projected costs of several million pounds per site for setting up the computers and hardware, and estimate that if the software is to be compatible with all the computers, it will cost much more? Is he further aware that at the moment the National Health Service is having difficulty in recruiting staff for secretarial work and similar jobs? How will the health service be able to recruit highly qualified computer technicians if it pays the salaries that it is paying at the moment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, an extra £2 billion was announced for the National Health Service in the Autumn Statement. The noble Countess will know that we have greatly increased funds to the health service over the past 10 years; funding is up 40 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, although the Government can calculate accurately the additional administrative costs incurred by health authorities and family practitioner committees as a result of this work, does the noble Lord agree that it is impossible for them to compute accurately the additional administrative costs incurred by general practitioners in shopping around for the best deal for their budgets and for their patients? Is he aware that some of the general practitioners' expenses qualify for direct reimbursement from the department? Will those additional administrative costs also qualify for direct reimbursement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord refers to practice budgets, in which case we shall allow the appropriate amount of money that a practice will need to meet its costs.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the 40 per cent. increase in the amount payable to the health service since 1978–79, but is he aware that with the rise in the interest rates this morning the increase in the cost of interest is also up by 40 per cent. since 1978–79?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the House had a very late night last night. I am afraid that I have not seen the announcement about the rise in interest rates. However, I can repeat that funding has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the health service salaries referred to by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, are severely limited and restricted and that much higher rates have to be paid to agency staff at all times because people cannot be found to fill jobs? Will this point be looked at carefully in the new administration?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that that point will be looked at carefully. I shall certainly bring my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the vital points raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, reflect very real apprehensions held by the medical, nursing and health visitors professions? Will he draw those points to the attention of his right honourable friend?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the noble Lord's remarks and I am aure that he will pay them a very great deal of attention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm or deny the accuracy of information that I have received to the effect that the resource management initiative in Wales alone will cost £40 million, which is the sum that he said the Government were allowing for the project for the whole country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the figure that I gave was in fact £40 million addition to the £42 million. I do not have any figures for Wales but no doubt I shall be able to write to the noble Lord later on this matter.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, no doubt my noble friend is aware that the additional £40 million is extremely welcome, but can he say whether the district general hospitals will receive a reasonable share as well as the teaching hospitals? Is he aware that at the moment the district general hospitals have many difficulties with funding?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall certainly make sure that the district hospitals are treated as fairly as teaching hospitals. I think we made that clear in the White Paper.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with only six more days to go for consultation and at a time when there is such opposition from all the professions in the National Health Service about their proposals, can the noble Lord assure the House that the Government still intend to proceed without giving further opportunity for consultation with the
398
professionals who have to carry out the work? Why are the Government rushing into this scheme at this stage? Does it make sense? I submit that it does not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not rushing into it. We have listened a great deal and will continue to listen to the remarks of all interested parties. The noble Lord implies that there is no support whatever for the changes. We feel that there is a considerable amount of support within the profession. Many of the objections to the White Paper have been misguided.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether I have understood him rightly. If not, will he make the matter clear? He said that in a general practitioner service with a practice that goes in for a budget holding service, the administrative costs will be reimbursed by the department. Therefore, can he assure me that in order to run their practice, their budget, and give the right kind of service, a practice of six general practioners would need to employ an administrator, and that that cost will be reimbursed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would be up to the practice itself to decide who they needed to employ. They would receive enough money to run the practice.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Lord said that the Government would continue to listen. Does that mean that genuine consultation will continue after the six days are up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government always continue to listen.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is being said that the White Paper should not be entitled Working for Patients, but Working for Consumers? In this case, the consumers are the family practitioner committees and the district and regional health authorities. Will the noble Lord please give the House an unqualified assurance that patient care and clinical management will take precedence over financial and other management?
Lord Henley: My Lords, patients are consumers. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, correctly said, the White Paper is called Working for Patients. We shall continue to work for patients and I shall continue to make clear that none of the costs will be to the detriment of patient care.

The Channel: Waste Dumping
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they reconcile the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (House of Lords Official Report, 9th May, col. 543) that he had "no knowledge of any

399
nuclear waste" in the waters around the Channel Islands with the statement of the Minister for the Armed Forces (House of Commons Official Report, 9th May, cols. 375–6) that the area "was used by the United Kingdom … for the disposal of low grade radioactive waste from 1950 to 1963".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, when I made my statement on 9th May I did not know that there was radioactive waste in the area where the French were conducting their search for a missing container of lindane. I am sorry if, inadvertently, I misled the House. I was fully aware that the Hurd Deep had been thoroughly examined by French naval minehunters and submersibles as part of their search, albeit without success. I have no reason to believe that this was affected by any constraints other than depth and current.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I unreservedly accept the apology of the noble Lord. However, does he agree that the misinformation that he gave the House——
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: ——misled us from the thrust of the Question that I was asking? Does the noble Lord remember that he added that I should ask the French about the presence of nuclear waste? According to his colleague in the Government, the Minister for Armed Services, the French had been in touch with the Ministry of Defence. I was asking—and it is still a relevant question—that when the search for this most highly toxic container was called off was there any suggestion that it was being called off for fear of disturbing the nuclear waste which we now know had been placed in that area by British Governments between 1950 and 1963?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry if I misinformed the noble Lord. As I said in my original Answer, I had no knowledge of the radioactive waste that was in the area. Nor, I would submit, was it necessary for me to have such knowledge. As I have said, the presence of those materials did not affect in any way the thorough search which the French made of this area.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not the waters in and around the Channel Islands are safe to drink? If they are, what are we on about?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would not advise the noble Lord to drink salt water. However, the waters are certainly not contaminated. There is no sign of contamination from the missing container.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, quite apart from my noble friend's statement the other day, because there is so much radioactivity in the sea anyway, can my noble friend reassure us that this low grade radioactive waste which was disposed of there has made any difference?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can say that the waste is low grade and the danger to humans is considered to be negligible.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for his apology. However, is he aware that there is some concern about co-ordination between government departments and whether or not it is adequate in such a case as this? What does the noble Lord propose to do to make sure that this kind of misunderstanding does not happen again?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I made clear at the time when I was answering the noble Lord's Question, this search area is the responsibility of the French and not of the British Government. The French were told by the Ministry of Defence of the presence this material. There was no need for my department to be aware of that information.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that every single Member of this noble House is radioactive, including the noblest of us all, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack? For my own part, in some three weeks I shall have lived 81 years with my own radioactivity and so far it has not done me any harm.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can certainly confirm—I am sure that all noble Lords would agree—that the noble Earl is looking most healthy despite the radioactivity.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister now aware that the sea beds around the Channel Islands are contaminated not only with nuclear waste which has been dumped there by British governments over 13 years, but also with conventional weapons and explosives which have been dumped there ever since the Second World War? Will he inform the House whose responsibility it is to clean this sea bed? Will the Government do anything to make those waters safer for the people living in that area and for the people who use transport across it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have tried to say, there is a very little risk indeed from this low grade material which was dumped in this site 25 years ago. The location was chosen because of the depth of water and the narrowness of the deep which would contain the munitions and nuclear waste and prevent their movement on the sea bed. I think that I can give a reasonable assurance that there is no danger in this regard.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us who will be responsible for the radioactivity liberated by the next eruption of Mount Vesuvius?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that the answer would be the Almighty.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is there not a great deal of misunderstanding about low level

401
radioactivity? Does not the waste consist of pairs of gloves that have been used in hospitals, and other such items, with only a slight suspicion of radioactivity.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I understand that this waste consists mainly of test tubes from hospitals, gloves, overalls and so on. They are packed in metal drums and then filled with concrete. There is therefore very little danger of any escape.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question that I asked him in my second supplementary question: Is he now aware that, in addition to radioactive waste, there has been the dumping of conventional weapons ever since the end of the war? Who will be responsible for cleaning up the waste that has now been dumped in this area across the Channel?
Lord Renton: My Lords, this Question relates entirely to radioactive waste.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has obviously read my honourable friend's reply in another place, he will see that the munitions have not been dumped since the war. They were dumped between 1946 and about 1971. The answer is that nobody is intending to clean it up.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Third Reading of the Football Spectators Bill will be taken on Friday 16th June.
With the leave of the House I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if noble Lords would keep their speeches reasonably brief.

Business of the House: Debate, 7th June
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Viscount Chandos and the Lord Ross of Newport set down for 7th June shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic and Transport in the UK
3.8 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill rose to call attention to the transport needs throughout the country, and in particular to the problem of traffic and transport in the Greater London area; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, I would stress that the question of transport is becoming increasingly one of national importance. We are therefore particularly pleased that so many speakers have put down their names to take part in this debate. I also think that it is very helpful that the Minister will be speaking early in the debate after I have sat down, and will also reply at the conclusion of the debate. That should be extremely helpful.
Complaints of congested roads are so many and so widespread that the problem does not need spelling out. These complaints are generally accompanied by concern at the inadequacy of public transport, again in all parts of the country. Transport development, both road and rail, is essential to enable all regions of the country to achieve the benefit of fast freight trains through the tunnel into Europe. I must ask whether the necessary road and rail infrastructure will be ready for the single market in 1992 and for the Channel Tunnel in the following year, 1993. That seems to be important.
Most goods are moved by road. Therefore there must be a good primary road network with adequate local feeder roads. In this debate I am not dealing with air and sea transport, but there must be excellent routes both to the airports and the ports of this country. Of other European countries, Germany moves 51 per cent. of its freight by road: France 52 per cent.; Belgium 59 per cent.; but Britain moves a staggering 79 per cent. of its freight by road. Other countries give greater assistance to their rail systems. Of six Community countries, Britain gives the lowest percentage of GDP to assist rail, including the movement of freight.
The Government White Paper on roads published recently states that 65 per cent. of haulage journeys are of 50 miles or less and repeats the road federation argument that if there was a 50 per cent. increase in rail freight that would mean a decrease of only 5 per cent. of present total road haulage. But it is stated by those who are conversant with the facts that longer distances make the movement of freight by rail viable. British Rail is making strenuous efforts to do this, as was seen by the successful Rail Freight 1989 conference and exhibition of the varied wagons for speedy movement of freight, which I had the pleasure of attending.
More co-ordination is needed. Department of Transport officials present road schemes to Ministers. But British Rail has itself to submit proposals to the Secretary of State which must be justfied by a 7 per cent. return. The Government should themselves initiate possibilities of rail development, including transhipment depots with Customs facilities on site and withiadequate roads to such centres. There should be plans for passenger and freight trains from the north of Watford to

403
proceed round London to the tunnel. Greater efforts should be made to market the facilities available under Section 8 and Section 36 grants for the transfer of freight from road to rail and waterways, instead of waiting for applications to come in. The present criteria of the nature of roads which can be involved in these schemes should be extended.
There have been some helpful rail developments, but there is much to make up. The Government have not provided investment but allow British Rail to spend its own money on approved projects on which a 7 per cent. return is desired. I am assured that no money has been given for investment purposes by the Government for at least the last five years.
There has been a decline in the public service obligation grant for Network SouthEast and the provincial services. In fact, the government grant to railways will plunge from £1 billion in 1963 to a projected £477 million by 1993.
Transport should be considered as a co-ordinated whole, not considered with the road network in isolation from rail, for example. Freight operators will select the transport mode which they consider to be most appropriate. It is obvious that movement of freight from road to rail will help to relieve road congestion and improve the environment. Most passenger travel is by road. The car is with us, although many households, particularly women and the elderly, have no access to a car. Still for many in rural areas the bus is virtually non-existent. We have to consider how to cope with these facts to make life more tolerable. There have been useful road developments, including bypasses, which have brought much improvement in life for many people, but the problem of congestion is still there. I understand that some 600 national and local bypass schemes in the pipeline are still outstanding.
A recent CBI report complains of decades of neglect of the transport system and points out that road congestion costs industry, and thereby consumers—you and I—no less than some £15 billion a year. The CBI is pressing for improved road and rail links.
The growth in the number of cars and the increase in road traffic has exceeded all planning expectations. The National Audit Office in October 1988 strongly criticised the underestimation of traffic in connection with road schemes and in particular cited the M.25, with its almost daily tailbacks, which all of us hear about when we listen to travel news on the radio. Traffic densities on our motorways and trunk roads are the highest in Europe. The Government's recently issued White Paper on roads states that road traffic increased by 25 per cent. since 1980. It has nearly doubled on motorways and increased by 50 per cent. on trunk roads. In the same period the number of vehicles has increased by 3 million to over 23 million.
The roads White Paper sets out a programme for the primary road network which has long been awaited, but it deals only with inter-urban links. These inter-urban links have to start and finish at towns and it is there that the serious problem of congestion occurs. The White Paper refers to
404
stop-start congestion on motorways, but there is no specific reference to delays at motorway interchanges, arrangements for maintenance contraflows and the handling of accidents and emergencies. Is it suggested that the intended widening of motorways will be the answer for all these issues or must further research be carried through?
The consultation paper on possible private funding—I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy only 48 hours ago—and the responses to that paper will need our most careful study. The involvement of private capital in the Docklands Light Railway extension, the Heathrow-Paddington link and also the Dartford crossing are helpful schemes but I believe we must be very cautious before there is overenthusiasm for the adoption of toll roads on our motorways and other primary networks. Such schemes can involve toll delays. Those of us who go through the Dartford Tunnel will realise the toll delays that can occur despite the numerous lanes that are in operation at Dartford. If there is a suggestion of toll roads, we must ensure that we do not find ourselves drifting into the creation of first-class and second-class road users.
The Government have gone a long way to frustrate the Public Transport Authority-Public Transport Executive structure, but I am certain that few will honestly deny that the PTAs greatly improve the development and co-ordination of transport in the metropolitan conurbations, including the important cross-boundary services and grants made to British Rail to assist with rolling stock and passenger services. Public transport cannot be considered apart from land use. The provision of transport is linked to other services and this is most appropriate where the local authority operates the bus services. That would be my reply to Mr. Michael Portillo, the Minister for Public Transport, who asked why local authorities should have transport companies. Now the Government are urging the Passenger Transport Executive to split its bus companies into smaller units. I must ask: why? Do not Ministers recognise that some operators, especially former National Bus Company subsidiaries, are taking over other operators to form larger companies? That is called market forces and free enterprise, but it is being denied absolutely to local authority transport companies.
Transport was not helped when the Government changed the transport supplementary grant to be confined to local authority capital projects for more major roads and traffic management. But now even that is to end. As a result of the operation of the poll tax the Government have stated that in future the rate support grant to local authorities will take account of a needs assessment. But strangely enough there is not to be a special needs assessment for transport. That is to be merged in a block assessment with 32 other services. It appears to indicate the narrow importance with which certain Ministers and people in the department regard the whole question of transport.
However, that is a most important matter because, as I have already stressed, congestion on urban roads is as great a problem as that on the primary road

405
network because that is where the traffic must start and finish. Highway authorities must have adequate financial resources to tackle the problem and also to deal with the deterioration in the condition of local roads. There must also be early legislation on the Home Report recommendations on street works which also aggravate congestion.
The Motion makes special reference to London. The Department of Transport forecasts that London traffic will increase by 2 per cent. each year and that there will be a 30 per cent. growth in car ownership in inner London within 15 years. Although road congestion is such that London could easily snarl up, it must be said that 83 per cent. of commuters to central London travel by public transport—that is, 40 per cent. by rail; 36 per cent. by Underground; 7 per cent. by bus and only 14 per cent. by car. But in outer London 80 per cent. of the residents' journeys are made by car. The other 20 per cent. of journeys are mainly by bus, often with inadequate services.
Yet there is no easy solution to the congestion problem. The Department of Transport's document Transport in London states that it sees no case for building new roads into central and inner London. Therefore, I must ask why we are going ahead with the London road assessment studies, some of which appear to suggest the possibility of further roads in inner and central London.
On 9th December, 1988, Mr. Peter Bottomley, the Minister for Roads and Traffic, said that strategic reporting would do more good than strategic planning as the answer to London's congestion. Can the Minister tell me exactly what that means? I may be a simple soul but I do not understand what it means.
In paragraph 29 of its report the CBI strongly criticised the piecemeal attitude to London transport and what it calls the lack of satisfactory liaison between divisions of the Department of Transport. London is the only major capital without a central authority. London in particular needs a single regional authority responsible for transport to deal with the condition of the bus, Underground, commuter rail services and also traffic management. Most other major cities provide substantially more financial help fro their transport undertakings than is given as revenue support to London Regional Transport. In fact, London Regional Transport support is being progressively reduced. Alongside that the financial objective set for the improved investment in British Rail Network SouthEast involves the need for increased fares.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of some of the proposals of the Central London Rail Study—in particular, the acceptance by the Secretary of State of the expenditure of £1·5 billion to update existing Underground lines. But in order to solve the problem London needs the new lines which are recommended in the report. Consideration should also be given to the 25 short-term initiatives to ease London's road congestion as set out in the CBI report.
Such matters could well assist other cities with their congestion problems. I shall single out only a
406
few. Illegal and inconsiderate parking causes considerable congestion. There is the lack of enforcement to deal with these matters. There is a vital need to cope with street works. There must also be an increased provision of station parking in the suburbs.
Many sections of the last report of the London Regional Passenger Committee expressed concern about London's transport problems. They include the increasing congestion; train and Underground overcrowding; increasing unreliability and use of second-hand buses. The committee also opposes the proposed deregulation of London buses and the extension of one person operation. That criticism is made strongly by the CBI in its report.
The committee makes absolutely clear that it would regard it as unacceptable that passengers should be expected to pay considerably higher fares to meet the substantial costs of the rail study developments. In paragraph 37 of its report the CBI likewise suggests that such a substantial increase in fares would have an adverse effect and drive commuters to their cars.
In conclusion, I stress that the main theme of the debate is that there must be effective planning and co-ordination of transport at national, regional and local levels. In a debate on transport in the other place on 7th February, 1989, the Secretary of State said that the Government were wise to do away with central transport planning and to put in its place market forces. Congestion and essential transport and road developments cannot be left to that kind of chance. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for providing the House with the opportunity for a debate which will touch on many aspects of this important subject.
Transport needs are growing throughout the country. This is the result of unprecedented economic growth in recent years. This growth has stimulated very large increases in demand for all forms of transport. It is important that we meet these demands in order to keep business moving and grasp the major opportunities presented by 1992 and the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993. To do this, the country must have modern transport systems which are safe and efficient and which have proper respect for the environment. That is the Government's aim.
As transport resources are a major element in the economy and a key component in the country's overall economic performance, we want to see them utilised and expanded in the most efficient way. We believe this can be achieved by fair competition between the different forms of transport and investment which represents good value for money. The quality and capacity of the transport systems will become even more important with sustained economic growth, intensified European competition and our position at one edge of the single market.
The Government have already pursued a wide range of measures to meet these challenges. For example, investment on British Rail is running at

407
the highest level since the transfer from steam to diesel; and over £2.5 billion has been spent since 1983. In the past six years BR has significantly reduced its dependence on public subsidy through increased efficiency and large increases in passengers and revenue. It is now probably the most efficient railway in Europe.
Capital investment in trunk roads in England has increased by nearly 60 per cent. since 1979. Some 880 miles of new and improved trunk roads have been completed, including 98 new bypasses. Continuing concentration on road and vehicle safety measures has given us the best road accident record in the European Community.
We have deregulated local bus services in England outside London and privatised the National Bus Company. We have taken steps to create an openly competitive environment for the port industry and have undertaken a substantial programme of improvements to ferry safety in the light of the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise".
We have involved the private sector in the Channel Tunnel and the Dartford Thurrock Bridge and in other matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. As the consultation document New Roads by New Means, issued earlier this week by my right honourable friend explains, we believe private finance has a growing role in the provision of transport infrastructure.
But that is not all. Plans exist for more investment and initiatives. For example, BR is planning to invest over £3·8 billion over the next five years. By the end of the decade BR will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and electrified a total of 60 per cent. of InterCity and some 30 per cent. of its total rail mileage. The Channel Tunnel will enable direct passenger and freight rail links to be provided from London and other parts of the UK to the heart of Europe and will encourage the use of rail for freight traffic on long Continental hauls.
While rail is important, it can meet only a small part of the increased demand for transport ouside the major city centres. So the plans to improve the road system which my right honourable friend announced last week and published in the White Paper Roads for Prosperity emphasise comprehensive improvements to the inter-urban motorway and trunk road network. They respond to new traffic forecasts by doubling investment in the programme from over £5 billion to over £12 billion, which is unprecedented. They will make a significant contribution to our target of reducing road casualties by a third by the end of the century.
How does this fit in with our achievements and plans? London is of vital importance to the national economy. Its population and that of the surrounding South-East region accounts for around 30 per cent. of the country's total population. Its economy generates about 17 per cent. of the gross domestic product and accounts for 16 per cent. of national employment. It is one of the world's most important international centres for business, finance and tourism. It therefore needs to be linked with the national and international transport systems. But its transport demands are so huge that where it is sensible to do
408
so, they need to provide through traffic with good alternative routes around the capital.
This is why we built the M.25 motorway, why we are improving it and why the roads White Paper identifies further plans and studies for increasing its capacity and providing it with further relief. It is also one of the reasons why we have given substantial support to the development of regional airports and why we want them to take as much traffic as they can attract.
After decades of decline, the numbers of people living and working in London are decreasing, and its economy is booming. There is strong development pressure and there has been an upsurge in the demand for transport, on both road and rail, which could not have been foreseen. Action is therefore necessary to deal with overcrowded trains and congested roads. This is in hand.
It is being taken within a broad strategic framework within which the London boroughs, the transport operators and others with transport responsibilities can work and plan their own decisions. The framework has five main elements.
First, we want to promote safe, efficient and attractive public transport systems which meet the growth in demand for rail transport to, from and within central London and which provide London with thriving, competitive and innovative bus services. Public sector investment in London's rail systems is running at around £650 million to $750 million a year. British Rail is planning to invest over £1 billion in Network SouthEast over the next five years, the bulk of it on higher capacity, more comfortable and efficient rolling stock. This will help NSE relieve the overcrowding and quality of service problems that have arisen on some lines at certain times of the day with the unexpected 26 per cent. increase in passenger usage.
London Regional Transport will be investing over £400 million this financial year. This is 70 per cent. more in real terms than in 1984–85. The investment programme includes a wide range of measures to ease congestion at stations and on trains as well as all the items identified by London Underground as being essential for safety following the Fennell Report on the King's Cross fire. London Buses have begun a fundamental reorganisation of its management structure as a prelude to the deregulation of bus services that we aim should take place in the early 1990s.
The Docklands Light Railway, which opened in August 1987, has been a great success in stimulating development in Docklands. The capacity of the existing system is being increased to keep pace with development.
Two major rail studies have been commissioned. The Central London Rail Study, published earlier this year, put forward proposals to improve services and meet future demands, including new lines under London. We hope to make a decision on the way ahead on this later in the year. If the proposed schemes were to go ahead, trains would be running on the new lines by the mid-1990s. My right honourable friend will also shortly be receiving the report of the East London Rail Study which is

409
examining the best options for further improving rail access from central London to Docklands and beyond. The Government have already indicated that they would wish to see a new line built, subject to the conclusions of the study and suitable contribution from developers.
The second element of the framework is to improve London's trunk roads to take traffic around central London, improve the links to the M.25 and remove the worst congestion spots. Thirty eight major schemes are planned or under construction with a works cost of over £1 billion. Priority is being given to improving orbital movement around the North Circular Road and improved access to Docklands and East London. A series of studies is looking at ways of improving conditions in areas largely untouched by the present programme. These include the London assessment studies which are looking at public transport as well as road options.
The third element is support to major borough road schemes, such as those to provide town centre relief and improved industrial access. Record support is being given to 41 major schemes estimated to cost some £445 million. Overall the aim is to increase London road investment to about half that planned on rail.
The fourth element is support to the use of new technology, such as advanced and responsive urban traffic control systems and route guidance sytems such as Autoguide, in order to improve traffic management. The Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill now before Parliament, which your Lordships have passed on to another place, demonstrates our commitment to new technology. Other traffic management measures include small-scale engineering measures on trunk roads with specific traffic management and safety objectives and improved signing on London's major routes.
The final element is encouragement to better parking controls, which can make a major contribution to keeping traffic moving. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred specifically to those. Carefully devised schemes can help to balance the needs of residents, short-stay parking and the need to ensure that through routes are kept clear at peak times. New regulations to simplify and rationalise the order-making procedures will be laid shortly. In parts of London much progress has been made with wheel clamping and vehicle removal to secure a better level of compliance with parking controls. Improvements in the enforcement arrangements generally are under discussion following the report of the Home Office working party on parking enforcement.
I hope this brief review of the Government's transport aims and policies will help to reassure noble Lords of the Government's commitment to meeting the country's transport needs and that they are playing their full part in overcoming the transport problems that London is facing, largely as a result of its economic success.The Government have achieved long-term structural improvements to the economy and we are determined that through fair
410
competition and value for money the transport systems will contribute to further economic prosperity.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I consider that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely justified in introducing yet another debate on transport. We have had many in recent weeks but as we face here one of the most serious economic and, indeed, social problems in the country today I believe that bringing the subject to the Floor of the House at the present time, particularly in the light of the two recent government publications, is entirely appropriate.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Brabazon of Tara, indicated that there are problems. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, emphasised the economic aspects and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to overcrowded trains and congested roads; so there is no division of opinion on those aspects. Much has been spoken and much has been written about this subject in recent times. Indeed, if debates, documents and media coverage could solve problems we should now have one of the best transport systems in Western Europe. Unfortunately, almost the reverse is true. I believe that we should spend a little time considering how this has come about and then consider what remedial action is being, or could be, taken.
I believe the situation has developed for two reasons. Over the years the main means of transport have remained in the public sector—roads, railways, Underground services and, indeed, the air space which is now also getting congested—and there has been a tendency for the amount of public expenditure in this sector to be limited. Although the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spoke about the increasing amount spent on roads and railways, and indeed on the Underground, measured against actual needs clearly that expenditure has so far been inadequate; otherwise, we would not have the problems that we now face.
The regrettable aspect is that, under Treasury control, the objectives which have been set, for example, to railways and the Underground have generally been to cut costs rather than to meet the needs. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to the railways as the most efficient in Europe. I do not know how he judges efficiency. If he judges it by the reduced measure of public financial support, he is probably right; but if he judges it in relation to efficient working and comfort for the consumer I suggest that he is far from right, as anyone who uses railways on the Continent can assert.
Therefore, it is a matter of judgment as to what we are seeking to do. Are we simply trying to save money and show what is regarded as value for money—cost-efficiency, or any other of those jargon phrases—or are we trying to provide the sort of transport system that we need in order to enable the economy to thrive and to provide comfort for the travelling public? I suggest that the Treasury should introduce a new factor in its assessment of cost. We are accustomed to all these factors now that the various privatisation measures are going through. We have the famous K factor, for example. We have

411
X and Y factors, and so on. I suggest that the Treasury introduces the C factor—the congestion factor—in that on every investment project in transport the C factor should loom large.
The CBI has estimated, as has already been stated and as is now well known, that the annual cost of congestion is £ 15 billion. That is the total national cost of this C factor. If only half of that amount had been used to improve the transport system in recent years that would not only have saved half of the cost but, of course, it would have immeasurably improved transport facilities. Therefore, I believe that although more is being spent on public transport it is not yet related to the true needs.
Secondly—and I am looking at the past—let us come to another major factor that has intervened—the continuing reluctance of the Government to accept that there is an interrelationship between the different transport modes. The fact is that we have government publications addressing this transport problem but they all specifically relate to one aspect at a time. We have had recently the important White Paper which makes a lot of sense in putting right previous statistics on the inter-urban roads system, the trunk roads system, with more money to be dedicated to that; but at the same time the secondary roads system which links into the trunk roads system, and which is in the hands of local authorities, has apparently had total expenditure cut in half. I do not see how; the two are inter-related. Trunk roads lead into secondary roads. People use both. How can the Government be virtually doubling expenditure on trunk roads and at the same time having the expenditure on secondary roads? That requires some explanation.
We then have the problem within London itself, which is an important part of this debate. Innumerable studies are being conducted on how to deal with the problem of congestion in London. It has been estimated that there are no fewer than 30 different assessment studies at present. The trouble is that while the consultants carry on researching, the congestion mounts. These studies take a long time to mature. Some of the road assessment studies have now been going on for a number of years and when they do mature they create a great deal of discussion and debate before action is taken.
Let me illustrate the point with an example with which I have been connected as chairman of a local residents association in the Victoria area. For over 10 years we have been trying to get some alleviation of the concentration of coach traffic in Victoria. It is extraordinary that at a time when coach traffic is being encouraged by various means London still has only one central coach station. Many searches have been made and many places mentioned. For example, there is the nonsense of having north-bound coaches coming south to pick up passengers rather than starting from north London. Places like King's Cross, Marylebone, and so on, have been mentioned, but every time these ideas have fallen down because they have been left in the hands of competing authorities. The resident local authority has not been interested; the London
412
Transport Executive apparently has not had sufficient powers and the Government have not intervened, so the result is that a simple problem of this nature which should have been resolved many years ago has been left in the doldrums.
Now we have the Government's White Paper on road expenditure. This certainly makes clear that much more is to be spent and the estimates have been revised sharply upwards. I should like to know how soon the project will get under way. For example, it has been stated that very little of it will in fact be even started in the course of the next two or three years. Is it correct that the preliminary work will take all that amount of time? We should like to know.
Secondly, how is this going to link up, particularly with the railways? That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I read the report with some care. Reference is indeed made to the railways but it is estimated that even a substantial expansion of railway facilities would do relatively little to alleviate this traffic problem. On the other hand, we understand that in France imaginative development of their fast trains has led to a substantial increase in railway traffic which has eased the problems on the roads.
Has this aspect been addressed? Why are we minimising the prospects that may arise from a much greater expansion of railway facilities than we presently envisage? The Channel Tunnel is indeed a very imaginative transport development, but there is the increasing fear that on the British side at any rate we shall be creating perhaps another massive area of congestion unless we get adequate road and rail facilities to service the tunnel.
We come to the question of the introduction of private finance. The Government have brought forward their consultative document and already a number of doubts have been raised in the minds of the motoring organisations, contractors and various public bodies. For a start, it is not clear what part the toll roads are going to play in the total road transport strategy. As I read the document they are going to arise ad hoc. A contractor will go along, have a look at a certain part of the country and say, "Right, I believe that this is a good spot at which to have a toll road". How is that to link up with the overall road transport plan? I do not see how these two factors will work together. There is the juxtaposition of the toll road, on the one hand, and the non-toll road, on the other. Mention has been made of first-class and second-class road users as something that may arise.
There is also the way in which this money is to be raised and the conditions that will be applied to it. There is an interesting little section on additionality, which is the famous Treasury approach to financing which virtually nobody, apart from the skilled mandarins in the Treasury, can understand. As far as I can follow there is not, and yet there is going to be, additionality as regards these private roads. It is said that individual roads will probably not be considered for additionality, but that the totality of them will be.
As I understand it, therefore, at some stage the amount of private money that goes to road

413
expenditure will be deducted from the amount of public money that would otherwise have been used for such expenditure. Is this the right interpretation? Is this a way of presenting to the public, on the one hand, a very ambitious plan for substantial increases in public expenditure on roads and, on the other, and virtually the next day, to bring forward a document in which, as a result of private financing, that public contribution will be automatically reduced? Is that what the plan is? We are entitled to know how the two fit together.
There is a certain amount of concern regarding the way in which this transport question is to be tackled. There must be satisfaction that the Government recognise that there is a transport problem. They have produced the White Paper. But we must wait for the other parts of the jigsaw to fit into place. How effectively are the intra-urban traffic problems to be dealt with amid this plethora of reports and studies that are taking place? How effectively are we to expand the railways and the Underground system to provide the comfort and ease of travelling that is so much needed?
Finally—and this is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, so effectively emphasised—what we really need to be satisfied about is that there shall be much closer co-ordination in the approach to transport problems, particularly in London.
3.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I too wish to express the appreciation of many of us to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for an opportunity to debate and think about this highly topical and difficult subject for which the little debate on 3rd May was a useful trailer. Despite the known predilection of clergymen for steam engines—the psychological roots of which are probably better not explored—I do not believe that bishops have any particular claim to wisdom where public or private transport is concerned. But I am clear that this is a matter that has an enormous impact on the quality of people's lives. It has moved centre stage in any discussion of what it is like to live and work in London today. As we have already heard, it also has major economic consequences for business and industry.
It happens that the Diocese of Southwark covers the whole of South London and East Surrey. My own home is in Streatham which is one of the outstanding black spots in South London and the subject of one of the special reports recently commissioned by the Government. Against that background, I wish to make one general point about transport policies. In the process I realise that I shall be covering some of the same ground that has already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, I am coming at it in a slightly different way. I wish to make a more detailed comment about the situation in London.
Dealing with the general point: in looking at the problems that we now face both between cities and within them, we are looking at the consequences of increasing population, wealth, and increasingly efficient technology. The subject concerns all those matters at least.
414
The result is a society dominated by the lorry and the car to such an extent that the quality of life is manifestly beginning to decline. I find it difficult to go along with the piece of paper sent to me recently by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that states bluntly that cars, buses and trucks give us a better standard of life. There are other things to be said. The fact is that there are many towns and many parts of the country where this may still seem to be true, and where the people may wonder what we are on about. But in the eight-and-a-half years that I have lived in South London (and where I have to travel constantly as part of my work) and since leaving the Tyne, the stress of traffic noise and fumes has steadily increased. The adequacy of public transport has slowly declined, and it has become difficult to move around at many times of the day. That experience can be repeated in many places in London and the South East and in other modern major conurbations.
All this means that the cities we have and the countryside as a whole, cannot stand much more pressure. We shall all be the losers unless we are willing to regulate our vehicles and our movements in a way that makes better use of the space available which cannot be indefinitely expanded. I know that so much of this is fairly obvious; but the logical result of taking this matter seriously is that we cannot solve these immense problems by so-called market forces alone. Efficiency is one thing and we need all that we can get of it. Competition, in the usual sense of the word, cannot provide the answer when you are constrained by existing roads, buildings, safety requirements and ecological demands that must be respected if we are to leave any future worth having to our children and grandchildren.
During his speech on 3rd May, when responding for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, used the phrase "value for money" five times. He used it once again today. It had already appeared in the Motion itself so it was understandable. The title of the new White Paper is Roads for Prosperity indicating a particular priority for schemes that will keep freight and commercial traffic moving.
I do not want to quarrel with the slogan "value for money" if it means an emphasis on such things as efficency, good management, properly designed and built roads, getting rid of wasteful practices, and so on. I do not want to quarrel with the importance of good roads to our national economy. But all transport exists to serve people, to move goods around, to help people to go to work, to see friends and family, to get to school, to shop, to go on holidays, and so on. If one lives in a city, especially a large city like London, one needs to be able to move around it in order to lead a balanced life. "Value for money" has to mean a transport strategy which actually gives value to people by enabling them to lead a more human kind of life, where they can do their more essential travelling without too much difficulty and at reasonable cost.
It also means moving goods around in a manner which is efficient and economical, certainly, but not in such a way that people's lives are made almost unbearable through noise, dirt, fumes and vibration. It is essential to define this objective "value for people" before going on to consider the various

415
options which may be drawn into a policy which is then thought to give the best value for money in the circumstances.
In all cities, but especially in London now, the key task is to find ways of drawing more people out of their cars and into efficient, frequent and reliable public transport. On 3rd May the Minister said:
"We believe that where passengers obtain benefit from new investment there is no reason for subsidy to be paid unless there are demonstrable benefits such as the relief of road congestion".
He made it sound as if that was likely to be a rare occurence. In Streatham it is a permanent feature of life for 12 hours a day. Furthermore, it is not just for the benefit of passengers. It is for the benefit of everybody that road traffic should be reduced in peak hours and throughout our cities so that other forms of transport, including buses, can move around more freely. The noble Lord then went on to argue that fares should continue to rise beyond inflation in order to pay for new rolling stock on the railways because,
"most rail users in London are better off than the majority of taxpayers".—[Official Report, 3/5/89; col. 239.]
Where does that argument take us? If fares rise higher and higher then of course the surviving rail users who can afford them will be the better off. Where does that leave the less well paid who cannot get housing in central London at an affordable rent or purchase price and who have to move further out? Provide a reliable, frequent and inexpensive public transport service and a substantial indirect contribution is made to the well being of millions of people, including pensioners, industry, commerce and many others, and particularly those on low incomes who are otherwise trapped but who are part of the whole fabric of our society and our communities in cities like London.
As I said earlier, I live in Streatham, a suburb with a narrow high road forming part of the A.23 to Brighton and with the South Circular running across the top of the district. About seven minutes walk from my house is British Rail Streatham station, conveniently located on the main road. There are trains to London Bridge and to Blackfriars. Outside the rush hour there are only two per hour to London Bridge and one through train—the Thames Link service—to Blackfriars. One of the two London Bridge trains is sometimes cancelled. I should like to travel by train more often, but what is the use of a 30 minute or hourly service which cannot then be relied on and which is itself fairly infrequent? That is how far we have gone with public transport in a certain place. It is typical of many others.
On the train journey to Blackfriars there is quite a long stretch between Loughborough Junction and Elephant and Castle, passing through Camberwell and Walworth—hardly uninhabited areas—where there is no British Rail station or Underground station. The people of those substantial districts have to use cars or buses. I contrast this with those areas that do have Underground lines which at least have trains that run frequently; or better still with Tyneside Metro, which not only runs frequently but has stations at short intervals so that many more people have easy access to the train. The Docklands Light Railway works on the same principle.
416
Experience in this country and elsewhere suggests that the provision of various types of railway which run frequently and in some cases have frequent pick up points is one of the most effective means of easing the pressure on the roads. All over south London there already exist rail tracks, many of them not heavily used except in the rush hour. Could not some of these be converted to something like the Tyneside Metro? There are also the other measures which have been spelt out for us in recent reports and in the speeches we have already heard. This would not be too difficult to do and it would not take too long to relieve the immediate pressures.
I believe that the people who live and work in London are now desperate for strong and decisive measures to be taken. Almost all of them know that the car has to be tamed for the sake of us all. They are not impressed by piecemeal gestures, nor by suggestions that more roads or more competition on the bus routes will solve the problem. They recognise that we are looking for a whole package of different measures. Recent reports, including the Government's own report, now at last seem to be acknowledging that that is so. They certainly do not want more houses knocked down to make new roads which suck in even more cars and move the congestion to a different place. They are looking, in short, for an integrated approach to what we all know is an immensely difficult problem, an approach in which the needs of the whole community are recognised and an approach which cannot be adopted without asking us all to accept some limitation on our choices and to make some contribution to the cost.
4.7 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring an interest in that approximately three years' time I shall be in receipt of a small pension from British Rail. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on initiating this debate. It brought to mind something which happened a few years ago. A noble Lord with a slightly critical tone in his voice said that we always seemed to be debating the disabled. I replied that the reason for that was very simple—we needed to do so. The same complaint could well be aimed at us today in that this is by no means the first debate we have had on transport. Again the answer must be that we need it.
This month I have travelled from my home in Hampshire to the House six times by car. It is a round journey of just over 90 miles. Two points have struck me. I come up on the A.3, a good part of which has three lanes in each direction. However, we seemed to be driving on a two-laned highway because the inside lane was virtually unused. One finds exactly the same thing in London. There are so many parked cars that where there could be two lines of traffic there is only one.
There is one aspect of the matter which has always puzzled me. We clamp cars so as to reduce the terrible congestion in London, but when a car is parked illegally it will perhaps be there for 10 or 15 minutes. However, if that same car is clamped then it might be there for several hours. I do not see how that can reduce the terrible mess we have in London today. However, that is a byline.

417
I have also noticed when coming into London, and certainly when leaving the city in the evening, what happens to the nice bus lanes which are meant to be there so that the buses do not get held up. On returning home last night during the rush hour, I stayed outside the bus lane. But what happened? The bus lane was full of private cars. Indeed, the same thing happens in Oxford Street. Private cars are meant to be banned from that area. But what happens? One can see dozens of private cars happily going up and down that street. Why do not the police take some action in this respect?
However, the biggest problem which I have noticed during my six journeys to the city this month is the number of cars containing only one person. If we assume that the majority of these people are making that journey every day, we must ask ourselves why they sit or drive in a car, with all the associated strain, and battle through London to their place of work when they could perfectly well take the train and the Underground? It seems to me that the answer is very simple: most of the people who drive into London drive company cars.
The company pays for the petrol, the insurance and indeed it pays all the expenses. These people have a car and therefore they will use it. Moreover, if they were to travel by train, the chances are that they would be worse off. But the businessman having driven from, say, where I live in Hampshire to central London must be worn out, with his nerves all jangling, when he could make the same journey very easily by train.
It is easy for people to say that the services on the trains and on the tubes is becoming worse. In fact, that is not true. What has happened is that over the past few years more and more people have changed from travelling in by private transport to travelling in by British Rail and the Underground. I do not like to quote statistics because, being dyslexic, I tend to get matters muddled up. However, I know that between 1985 and 1988 the traffic on Network SouthEast and the Underground has increased by 114,000, while in the private sector the figure has been reduced by 37,000.
I understand that the Government are spending £12 billion on the roads. It seems to me that that is probably money well spent outside the major cities, but there is nothing that can be done in London. It is popular to talk about the M.25—indeed, I must admit that I have done it myself—and say that the planners should be sacked. However, I found out the other day, when speaking to one of those planners, that when they were told to design the M.25 they were given a certain amount of money. Therefore, they may have wanted to make four or five lanes each way, but the money was not available.
Where the planners are at fault is that they did not think ahead. We have all seen the little cards which one can put on one's desk which say, "THINK AHEAD" with the "D" dropped at the end. All right, there are three lanes of traffic and it seems that, "When we have the money or the time, we will put in some more lanes". But, when the motorway was being built. why on earth did they not build the bridges so as to allow for further development? I say that because now with the increase in the number of
418
lanes all those bridges must be pulled down and rebuilt. I think that that is a shocking waste of money.
The London Underground is running near enough at saturation point. The only way in which to increase traffic is by building new lines under London; one is East-West and the other is North-South. However, that could be very expensive. The cost of building one mile of railway on the East-West line is £200 million and as regards the North-South, the cost is still £100 million per mile. There is nothing that London Underground can do.
The future lies in Network SouthEast. I do not know about the situation in the rest of the country, but I use Network SouthEast. More trains cannot be slotted in. However, it has been decided to lay modern lines and install modern signalling. With the modern signalling, the headway—that is, the space between the back of one train and the front of the following train—can be reduced. New stock is also being built which will be quieter, more comfortable, and will have better acceleration and deceleration. But, best of all, the lengths of the trains will be increased. This can be done because the network has the ability and facility to lengthen platforms, which of course London Underground cannot do. In the future, a new type of train will be introduced. It is called the Networker. This train will be all aluminium; there will be many more seats; and there will be more trains and more comfort.
But the fact is that such innovations are very expensive. Therefore the money must come from somewhere. Who will pay? As has been said, it is no good putting the fares up too high because a stage will be reached where people will say, "It is so expensive now. Bother it. I shall go by car". If at the turn of the century all those people who wanted to travel by car did so, it has been estimated that such traffic would require a parking area four times the size of Hyde Park. Moreover, even then, how would people get to Hyde Park when there would be such terrible congestion in the area? When one had parked one's car, just imagine how one would find it again. How would one get to one's place of work? Here, again, is where Network SouthEast comes into its own. At present Network SouthEast has more car-parking space than in the whole of London. Outside London land is cheaper and therefore the network can afford to build more car-parking spaces.
Mention has been made of the proposed toll roads. I am not interested in whether this is carried out by government or by a private operator. However, there is one thing of which we can be sure and that is the person who will use them. Who does not give a damn—if noble Lords will forgive the language—about how much it costs? It is the business traveller. That is because the company is paying; he is not paying. Therefore if the charge is £1 per mile, so what? He could not care less.
However, what will happen to the ordinary private motorist going on a family holiday? Such people cannot afford to pay £1 a mile, or indeed anything. Therefore there is a great danger that the money being approved for toll roads will not be spent on the roads which ordinary people—I think that includes

419
most noble Lords, as well as myself—wish to use. I shall not pay a high price to travel on a private motorway. We must do something. I am talking mainly about the rush hour—seven o'clock to ten o'clock in the morning and the equivalent length of time at night. Something must be done. At one time we spoke about flexitime. It was tried everywhere. They tried it in Hong Kong. It does not work. If we cannot persuade people to stagger the time that they go to work and the time they go home the only thing to do is to provide increased capacity and more comfortable trains. We must reduce the necessity for people to stand.
I have noticed several times recently when travelling on the Underground that when a packed train comes in people force their way on. They struggle, heave and push. They cram themselves like sardines into the trains. I am an asthmatic and so I say, "No way" and I wait. The next train comes in. It is probably half empty. I even get a seat. People want to leave at a certain time and that is the time they leave. They are not sufficiently flexible.
A comparison between this country and the Continent is usually made. The Minister said that we probably had the finest and mos efficient railway system in Europe. I agree with him. We must also remember that France is a big country compared to ours. They can afford to build a nice straight line which runs for several hundred miles. The loss of land does not mater. The loss of land in this country matters because we are a small island. That is why we are having a great deal of fuss about the fast rail link to the Channel Tunnel, which has to go through Kent. Everyone agrees that it must go through Kent but people say "so long as it does not go through the area in which we live". We must be realistic. If the Government will put up the money, we shall have a rail system on the surface, and underground, which will be the envy of the world.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I too should like to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Underhill for initiating the debate. I shall not follow his remarks about London. I should like to continue the observations he made about the break up of the metropolitan transport groups. It is worth reminding your Lordships that under Section 61 of the Transport Act 1985 the Government have certain powers. They are bringing those powers into operation at present. In the West Midlands, the area upon which I shall concentrate, West Midlands Travel Ltd. has been required to divide itself into smaller units.
To give them their due, the Government have said that the prime aim of the division is to safeguard the best interests of bus passengers. That of course is what West Midlands Travel has been doing since deregulation. When Ministers make such remarks I wonder whether they obtain their advice from their civil servants or their advisers or whether they ever go and see for themselves.
Has the Minister or any of his advisers travelled to the West Midlands to see the West Midlands Transport Authority in operation? Have they spoken
420
to the passengers who use the buses? Have they travelled the network to see how it links up the various cities that it covers and complements the rail links? Have they read the attitudinal surveys which are regularly conducted by West Midlands Travel? If they came to the West Midlands perhaps they would like to meet the pressure group Bus Watch, which constantly ensures that the travelling public is dealt with in what it calls fair and just ways.
West Midlands Travel is in constant contact with the blind through the Birmingham Institution for the Blind, of which I am president, and through the city's organisations for the disabled. I am sure that if the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, were here she would be pleased to hear what has been done by West Midlands Travel about special platforms for the disabled and the elderly. If the Minister has not been to see us, perhaps I may extend an invitation to him to do so. He will be made most welcome. I hope that it is a nice day like today so that he can see the beauty of the West Midlands.
West Midlands Travel serves the urban conurbation of the West Midlands and the surrounding towns and villages. That of course includes the Black Country Urban Development Corporation, a part of the West Midlands into which the Government are putting a tremendous amount of money to try to restore the dereliction which has arisen from the demise of the steel industry.
The whole of the West Midlands operating area was once the heartland of the British engineering industry. It was one of the most prosperous areas in the country. I put into my notes that that was until the Conservative Government gained control in 1980, but I thought that that was not the thing to say. Although recently the West Midlands has been through a serious economic recession, we are now, thank goodness, in a period of recovery which we hope will continue.
The travel patterns of the West Midlands as a whole reflect workers travelling to the large industrial districts, which are all within that conurbation. That includes the commercial centre of Birmingham. Although many other towns are included in the West Midlands, Birmingham is a particular draw because it will have the largest shopping area.
Before deregulation it could have been said that West Midlands Travel was a barrier to competition in the area. The Government felt that it deterred competitors because it was a large organisation. That has not been the case since deregulation. There has been an acceleration of major bus groupings moving into the West Midlands since 1987. When I refer to major bus fleets, I mean those with a substantial number of buses and considerable resources. Those bus companies have shown themselves to be ambitious and determined to grow. They have not shied away from competing against West Midlands Travel in their search for growth.
The large competitors started after the National Bus Company was broken up. The competitor fleets which operated in the West Midlands were called Midland Reds. There were four Midland Reds and they were broken up. There were management buy-outs originally. Midland Red West now has 400

421
buses, which is many more than it had originally. That company is the product of a management buy-out from National Bus. It has been acquired by Badgerline Holdings Ltd., which already owns five other bus operators and has a total fleet of 1,750 buses. Midland Red North, another management buy-out from National Bus, now has 250 buses, which is an increase. It was acquired by another large bus company, Drawlane Holdings Ltd., with a total fleet of 1,560 buses. It sounds wonderful, the way the Government broke up National Bus just to forge a monopoly of three or four other companies, but that is what happened.
Midland Red South, another management buy-out from National Bus, now has 220 buses and it is part of Western Travel Group, another bus company. Cheltenham and Gloucester, another big company with 425 buses operates nearby. The last company, Midland Fox, was the former National Bus Company Midland Red, which has grown large by acquiring many smaller operators. It now has a fleet of 430 buses and 30 per cent. of the company is owned by Stevenson's of Uttoxeter, a private bus company. The combined Midland Fox/Stevenson group has a fleet of 630 buses.
So much for the operations area of the West Midlands and the competition. It is a densely populated area, with high ridership levels compared with the rural and suburban areas around. The Minister said this afternoon, "What we want is fair competition". I went to the European Parliament with my noble friend Lord Ardwick, who is now sitting next to me, and we used to listen to remarks about fair competition. I remember on one occasion that we had an economic discussion on the subject of fair competition being real competition.
The Minister spoke about fair competition this afternoon, but West Midlands Travel, unlike its competitors, is penalised. It cannot operate under the fair competition rules: it is restricted by law as to the area in which it can operate. All the other bus companies which have taken over can come into the West Midlands and vie for business in competition with West Midlands įTravel, which can do nothing outside its area. When the Minister speaks about fair competition, I should say that on this occasion he speaks with his tongue in his cheek.
Since deregulation we have seen bus companies large and small acting in competition with West Midlands Travel. But also in the West Midlands there is a strong rail network, which the Minister would see if he came, with 64 railway stations all operating in the area. I am not including the inter-city trains going out of the region. Since deregulation a new railway station, Snow Hill, has been built in Birmingham, which has improved local rail access from the conurbations. That will be extended by a new line from Walsall and Hednesford. As the Minister may know, it is being subsidised by Staffordshire County Council.
The PTA also has plans to develop an extensive light rail network serving the main commuter corridors. A private Bill is making progress through Parliament at the present time. In the West Midlands, West Midlands Travel do not have a monopoly of the travelling public in the area. The
422
company is facing up to the competition from the bus companies and railways and it is experiencing substantial competitive pressure. It does not mind that: it has lost mileage and it has lost nearly 500 buses since deregulation, but it accepts that it is in a competitive market and that such things will happen.
Something that has arisen from the competitive pressure being placed on West Midlands Travel is the benefit to passengers resulting from fare restraint. Because West Midlands Travel has kept its fares down, competitors' fares have been kept down, which has been of great benefit to the travelling public. It is a point which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark used—we must have cheap fares in order to encourage people to travel on the buses, because that is the only way in which certain sections of the public can travel in any case.
If we can keep fare levels down, we can make provision for concessionary fares—something of which we in the West Midlands are extremely proud. We can keep down the cost of those discretionary fares, which local authorities have to pay for by subsidies. Despite the difficulties which London and all the other authorities have had to face with vandalism and graffiti on public transport, West Midlands Travel decided to be extremely tough. It took all those responsible before the magistrates' courts, and that had a salutary effect on vandals and graffiti artists. For those carrying out much more serious criminal damage, video cameras were put on all the double decker buses. While Big Brother watches up there, we may not like it but it protects the travelling public.
In conclusion, during nearly two years of operation as a company, West Midlands Travel has been successfully maintaining a comprehensive network of services, making a profit and incurring corporation tax of approximately £4 million, which is paid to the Government. It is facing up to the challenge of competition, which is what it was told to do after deregulation. In my view, there will be no benefit to bus passengers, nor to the travelling public at large, from a division of the company. I ask the Government not to let political dogma break up a bus service which satisfies the travelling public and operates in the competitive market for which the Government have asked.
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the representations which have been made from West Midlands Travel. In my view, any change will be to the detriment of the travelling public and could result in increased fares, and the concessionary fares which are so helpful to the elderly might again be placed in jeopardy. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some satisfaction when he replies later in the debate.
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, I wish mainly to address some of the problems concerning the West Midlands. I too should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving your Lordships the opportunity of holding this debate. Anyone who undertakes travel within the country at

423
present can only be acutely aware of the severe problems encountered on nearly all major roads and in towns and cities.
With that in mind I must congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the publication of a most welcome White Paper, Roads for Prosperity, the effects of which will go a great deal of the way towards easing the worsening situation in which we find ourselves at present. The vast extra spend will not only help to ease the appalling congestion, it will also provide extra jobs and investment and as a demonstration of continuing confidence in the construction industry it will have far-reaching effects upon peripheral industries such as construction equipment manufacturers.
At present with long delays on motorways and major trunk roads, industry must surely lose a colossal amount of money in wasted time, fuel and resources, and additional wear and tear on vehicles, not to mention delayed deliveries of goods with all the consequences of customer frustration that that entails.
It is most interesting to note the results of an exercise carried out internally by JCB, the construction equipment manufacturers based in Staffordshire. That company spends annually £6.6 million on United Kingdom transport costs. It estimates that improvements carried out on a 10-mile stretch of the A. 50 Uttoxeter to Stoke-on-Trent road have cut the time for transporting goods to and from its factory at Rocester by an average of 15 minutes. That represents an annual saving of over £165,000 from a single road improvement. It is quite astonishing.
Moreover, if an M.1-M.6 two-lane link carriageway were constructed between Derby and Stoke-on-Trent JCB estimates that its minimum annual transport saving would be over £660,000. Those are figures for one company alone. A general upgrading of the road system in the United Kingdom would produce savings for that company of over £1.5 million a year. Translated into national corporate transport terms, the savings and benefits of an improved, or even partially improved, road system are quite staggering.
The benefits are not only in transport terms. More efficient transportation means less stock needs to be held; firm delivery dates can be met; customer confidence can be maintained, and less working capital is tied up over long periods. The plus points go on. For far too long this lack of money in an expanding and successful economy has been the cause of major congestion on our roads. Many roads are old and cannot cope with the increased volume of heavy traffic. At last Her Majesty's Government have grasped the nettle and plans for major improvements and upgradings are to be put into action.
But the problem will not go away no matter how much money is thrown at it. Our road system will constantly need major attention and improvement so long as it exists. It must be like owning a country seat—I am delighted to say that I do not—which needs constant maintenance and repair and is a
424
never-ending demand on one's resources. However, the Government's country seat, our road system, with the new building and improvements mooted, can and will produce great dividends for this country. I suggest that it is an investment well worth making.
May I now turn briefly to passenger transport, especially in the West Midlands, which is another area of frustration to many. I am greatly relieved that I do not have to commute from the outer London area. We in the West Midlands have to bear our share of commuter misery, just like those in the South. The problems around Birmingham, Wolverhampton and the Black Country are made worse because of the great revival in the area's fortunes which is currently taking place.
It is a great pity that Dr. Beeching's railway cuts hit the area so hard. The need now is to reopen some of the redundant lines. Indeed, a line from Hednesford to Cannock has recently been reopened by Staffordshire County Council which also provided funding. It has proved a great success. Your Lordships are shortly to hear in this House about the Midlands metro, an electric tram-like passenger transport system which is to run between Birmingham Snow Hill Station and Wolverhampton, with stations every 700 metres. This light rail rapid transit system using an old railway line will surely ease the burden on the inner-city road systems in Birmingham; it can only be good for the area.
Her Majesty's Government are showing enthusiasm and considerable initiative in transport matters. The new schemes being planned and carried out by both Government and other bodies are highly commendable. They will be of great benefit to the passenger including the commuter, to commerce, and to industry, and therefore to the economic health and well-being of the United Kingdom. Let us have more good transport news soon.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this afternoon I must begin by apologising publicly, as I have already done in private, to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to whom I am grateful for giving us the opportunity to enjoy this debate on transport today. I must also apologise to the Minister and to your Lordships' House because I find myself in something of a cleft stick today. On the one hand, we have this quite enchanting debate, and on the other hand, there is the opportunity for me to go to an RSA lecture. In fact, I accepted that opportunity a long time ago.
At the lecture I shall hear Dr. John Prideaux, the director of InterCity, tell us how, by getting his product and his prices right and by cutting his costs, he has turned InterCity into a profitable railway. I believe that this an achievement for which both he and his many colleagues in British Rail should be congratulated. Your Lordships will understand that I find myself caught between the groaning cheeseboard and the delightful dessert trolley, and I hope that your Lordships will, with your customary

425
indulgence, allow me to have a nibble at both and allow me to leave early.
Much of the debate so far, apart from the Minister's speech, has been critical. But I feel that our transport situation is much stronger than perhaps one might be led to believe after having listened to other noble Lords. I feel that the Government's policy is broadly right, and that that framework having been set the operators, be they rail, road, air, or even shipping—which I think no noble Lord has touched on—have seized the opportunities that have been given to them over the last decade. To reduce subsidy is not necessarily wrong, although one might believe so if one had sat through the debate. I believe that to encourage competition and freedom of choice is right.
My own interest is in rail, and I believe that the railways are getting it right. Subsidy is falling. As I have said, InterCity went into profit in the last financial year. That is a quite splendid achievement by any worldwide standard. Freight and parcels are already profitable. The subsidy is falling in terms of Network SouthEast, as it is in terms of the provincial sector.
Privatisation—en bloc, I hasten to add, and not in any fragmented form—which has been quite inconceivable right through my life since nationalisation in the late 1940s, is now something to which I look forward. But I can foresee an investment problem before we untap British Rail's enormous potential by putting it into the private sector. In recent years all BR's investment has been funded by internally generated funds or by property disposals.
But I wonder whether that will be enough when we come, in the 1990s, to the King's Cross development, the Channel Tunnel link and the East-West cross rail—and I gather that we can look forward to a Bill for that in one House or the other next autumn.
There will be the King's Cross development; the Channel Tunnel link at £1.7 billion; the East-West Cross-Rail at perhaps £1.3 billion; and perhaps a North-South Cross-Rail to follow later. Noble Lords are agreed that those links are needed. When they are under construction I foresee that investment elsewhere in British Rail will be severely penalised. Indeed, the levels of investment in recent years have done a great deal to generate the extra traffic.
The roads White Paper has been very generous with our money. But what do we do about the railways? Do we look to fares? Obviously the user should pay. I think that is a fairly reasonable assumption, and after all I am the ultimate public transport user, never having held a driving licence. Should we look to property developments, as has been canvassed? That may be feasible in regeneration sites, but I do not believe that it is feasible in terms of London Transport's refurbishment of the Central Line, or of the cross rail links.
We can look to EC funds. Or perhaps I should say: can we look to EC funds? Or can we look to a local employment tax, as is levied in Paris? When London Transport comes up as an oral Question, frequently the Back-Bench colleagues of the noble Lord the Minister ask him why cannot we follow Paris? But
426
I wonder whether the captains of industry on the Conservative Back Benches would really wish to follow Paris if they knew that it was funded by a swingeing local employment tax?
Alternatively, can we look to the Government, as we do with roads, for what one might call a capital grant? That is not something that British Rail has had for many years. But there is a national benefit argument here as well as a congestion alleviation argument, which I suggest would certainly justify capital grant being considered. However, that would also be the case if the railways were partly funded by means of capital grant. We should be able to look for a cross-rail link that would not be dependent on revenue subsidy.
Turning to the roads, I welcome the White Paper as a palliative for congestion. However, so far as I can see, the White Paper was not greatly welcomed by private industry except in the capacity of contractor. I took advice from Trafalgar House Investments which took the view that this was good news for the company as a contractor but that there was not much in it for private investment otherwise, except perhaps in terms of a few estuarial crossings and infill schemes.
It seems to me that Trafalgar House Investments had anticipated the Green Paper which came out yesterday. My friends there added that toll lanes on existing roads were a non-starter, not because of the first- and second-class arguments that have been advanced by other noble Lords this afternoon, but simply because one cannot run single lanes on that basis. When one lane is closed one has to be able to change from the publicly owned to the privately owned lane and vice versa. How can one reasonably fund on that basis and make sure that those who use it are paying their share:
Last week I looked at the announcement of the building of the M.1 in the early 1950s. I was somewhat shattered to find that tolls were being considered then. We are all agreed that we need to do something about our transport infrastructure but—if I have the date of the M.1 anouncement right—it has taken us 38 years to get as far as even beginning to think of a toll road scheme. It is a very modest start, a very welcome one, but is the fact that it has taken us 38 years good practice, or does it simply show that we have overlooked our transport infrastructure, be it publicly or privately funded, for far too long?
Turning to aviation, I find the policy of liberalisation, as I am sure most noble Lords do, totally acceptable. The Government have set the scene and the operators are taking the opportunities. I know that I am benefiting. However, there is a blot on the Government's transport policy escutcheon in the aviation field. I am referring to Prestwick. To preserve Prestwick's status as a transatlantic gateway flies against all that I understand by the Government's ethos of freedom from regulation and freedom of choice for the consumer.
It may be very plausible to talk about building new roads and railway stations to make Prestwick more popular. I should say that there will be a few Conservative seats in the neighbourhood that will

427
be made more attractive, as was touched on in a Question last week. However, it would do nothing to increase Prestwick's status as a transatlantic gateway because people do not want to travel via Prestwick. As I said many years ago, if a customer wants steak it is no good telling him that you can offer him the best salmon in the world. That is what we are doing now.
What does preserving the unique status of Prestwick achieve? It frustrates British Airways' attempts to meet customer demand. It frustrates international airlines' wishes and attempts to meet customer demands. In other words, the customer is totally frustrated. One sees not Prestwick as the beneficiary but Manchester, which has been marketed aggressively not only to the consumer but also to the operator. That will be the airport which will offer the South of Scotland the choice unless the Glasgow-Prestwick arrangement is ended.
Almost every noble Lord has spoken against the fall in subsidy. I have to ask myself what is wrong with the fall in subsidy. More and more I come to believe that transport subsidy or support, like social security, should be a matter of need and not a matter of right. For example, I feel that it is wrong that we subsidise Network South East. As has been said, London and the South-East are the powerhouse of this country. Access to car ownership is high and many households have two cars. Why should we subsidise them unless we justify the subsidy as a palliative for congestion?
However, in Tyne and Wear, for example, subsidy meets a need because car ownership is very low. In Glasgow city car ownership is low and in parts of Strathclyde it is low. In those areas I think that there is a case for subsidy. I believe that there is a need for subsidy for the provincial railway network if we are to preserve it. I feel that there is a need for subsidy both for surface transport and for shipping in the Highlands and Islands, and again I feel that a need is being met there and the subsidy is justified.
In effect, when opening my remarks I apologised for sinning. I have sinned again because I have considered transport in its different modes whereas, as has been said today, one should look at it as a totality. Consider, for example, the Channel Tunnel—that enchanting private enterprise prospect. Noble Lords will know that the gauge of railways in Britain and most of Europe, apart from Iberia and Finland, is the same; the tracks are the same distance apart. Noble Lords who follow transport matters will know that private sidings and wagon load traffic are no longer even a dying art in Britain: they do not exist any more. They exist and are very common in France and Germany. Noble Lords will also know that because we were the first on the railway scene we have a very narrow loading gauge. The rails may be the same distance apart but the widths and heights permitted in Europe are very much greater.
If one looks at transport as a totality I wonder what the Government are doing to address a problem which I foresee. When the tunnel opens, many European railway companies will be greatly encouraged and will freight their wagon loads to
428
Cheriton. They will not be able to take them any further. The British bridges are too low and too narrow. I fear that we will thus have a massive transfer of freight to road.
Are we proposing to solve that problem by integrating road and rail at Cheriton? Or are we addressing that problem by encouraging and funding British Rail to enhance its infrastructure so that the full regional benefits of the Channel Tunnel can be achieved by industry in the provinces using rail, among other options?
Perhaps I may put another point about integration, and it will be my last point. I come back to the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. One could look at that proposal in isolation. However, coming up there is the East-West cross-London route—Paddington, North-West London and beyond to Liverpool Street and East and North-East thereof. We also have a golden opportunity to put a decent coach terminal somewhere in the vicinity of Paddington on derelict land. That would solve the problems of some Westminster spokesmen in this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has just vacated his seat. It might upset others. However, I believe that we must look at all those options as a totality and not one by one.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Underhill will allow me to use this opportunity to concentrate mainly on the Government's recently published White Paper. Before doing so, however, there is an overriding question with regard to the road and rail issue which I should like to pose to my noble friend the Minister.
It appears that it is the Government's policy to let road and rail fight their own corners in their own ways, and may the better man win. I do not believe that that is the right way to go about the problem. If one considers freight in particular, it is obvious that, certainly in the UK and probably in Europe, the bulk of freight will be carried by road. That is because the cabotage system is shortly to be introduced with its ease of loading, and because most private sidings have now disappeared and it is unlikely that large manufacturing companies would rebuild those sidings.
Where passengers are concerned, although the car population in this country per household is a good deal lower than it is in France or West Germany, distances are different and there is a different ethos about owning a motor car. Therefore, most passenger traffic will be carried by road. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government could devise schemes that would encourage a greater transference of freight to rail and create an environment in which the railways could compete more fairly against road.
Perhaps I may turn for a few moments to the White Paper, Roads for Prosperity. In the earlier part of his remarks, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury spoke about the benefits and gave certain examples with which I concur. I give a warm welcome to the White Paper. I have not read of any organisations—whether motoring, commercial or road building organisations—that have not given a warm welcome to the White Paper, which certainly sets aside many

429
of the criticisms that we have levelled at government for the past five or six years. I assume that the White Paper is an expression of a firm commitment to that kind of expenditure—the expenditure set out in the White Paper—over a period of 10 years. If that is so, one might perhaps ask a number of questions of principle.
I turn now to the annexe to the White Paper which deals with forecasting. There is not a great deal of point in looking back over one's shoulder at the mistakes of the 1980 and 1984 forecasts. I fear that we shall have to wait until June to see the complete 1989 national road traffic forecast breakdown. Paragraph 4 of the annexe refers to a forecast increase in vehicle miles for all traffic between 1988 and 2025 of a low of 83 per cent. and a high of 142 per cent.
Most of us will be more concerned with the relevant period covered by the White Paper; that is, the next 10 years. What are the relevant forecast growths up to, say, the year 2000, which is in effect the period to which the proposals refer? I have seen some suggestions of figures that give a low of 28 per cent. and a high of 49 per cent. Are those figures about right? It is important that those forecasts are right for the future because a great deal of commercial vehicle and business planning depends on them. It is sad that we have been so far adrift in the past.
Perhaps I may now turn to the part of the White Paper that deals with the proposed studies. I shall use two examples to illustrate the point that I intended to make. I notice that a proposed study of a major route or corridor is the east-west strategic route between Kent and Hampshire. If one couples it with the A.31-A.35 Southampton to Exeter assessment, one has a whole east-west roadwork. That would go some way towards feeding the Channel Tunnel, when it is completed, and the additional business that will accrue from it. At the moment, the Government appear to believe that only the one major route—the upgraded M.20, and so on—will satisfy the traffic needs to and from the tunnel.
I must question whether that provision is adequate. It is contrary to what our partners in the tunnel project think. In the Pas de Calais region, they have developed their entry to and exit from the tunnel on a three major route—east-west, and south—principle. I must ask whether there is any kind of European co-ordination in the Dover area. It seems that the French are thinking about different volumes of traffic than we envisage. There must be a balance somewhere and I wonder whether we have found it.
If one looks at the schemes as well as the studies—table 1 is a very detailed table—I presume that there is some kind of time-scale and some order of merit or priority. I wonder whether that will be published. Again, I think it is necessary to have a 10-year plan involving many routes right across the country, a great deal of expenditure and an invitation to private development. I believe that one should know the kind of time-scale envisaged for some of the more major studies and the more major schemes. Similarly, if that could be done, details could be
430
given of the department's breakdown of the spending of the £12,000 million on a year-by-year basis from, say, now until the year 2000. Again, that might be helpful, although I accept that it might well have to be hedged in with a number of limitations because the criteria may vary from year to year. Nevertheless, all things being equal, I cannot see any reason why that kind of schedule cannot be produced.
Perhaps I may now turn to the paper that was published yesterday—New Roads by New Means. There are three areas upon which I wish to touch. The first of those is in paragraphs 26 to 28, which deal with exclusivity. I am not sure at this stage whether I am in total agreement with the Government's thinking on the matter. Schemes can quite easily cost a million pounds and it seems to me that more schemes might be put forward if the exclusivity argument were looked at a little further. In paragraph 28, the Government say:
"it would not be practical to devise a formal system to compensate a firm which claimed to have originated an idea or proposal which was eventually undertaken by another firm".
Surely there is something in the rights of intellectual property ownership that might provide some comfort with regard to that proposal. A number of proposals have been made. It has been claimed by one major contracting company—I believe that it was Mowlem; the other company will forgive me if my memory does not serve me well here—that it was deterred from bidding for private schemes because of that exclusivity point.
Secondly, I wish to refer briefly to the subject of tolls. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and, to a certain extent, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, were pretty dismissive about them. I am not so dismissive about tolls as perhaps I would have been a few years ago because I believe that we are now fast approaching an overall road network which could compare quite well. If there were an alternative route—east-west or north-south; in other words, a toll road—I can see no objection to paying for it, whether it is business or private individuals. In France private individuals prefer to go on the motor routes from the north to the south of the country. That adds about £30 to the journey. They are mostly holidaymakers, but some business people and commercial operators use them. I see nothing wrong with that provided there is a reasonable alternative route.
Lastly, I should like to place on the record a point about paragraph 44, which deals with additionality. I do not think that there has been any misunderstanding about additionality. As we have seen through the rates and the European contributions, it has not added to the total spend. The Government have stated:
"the annual level of expenditure on the road programme is determined by the Government in the light of the economy generally".
That is fully understood. Then:
"The private financing of a scheme already in the road programme, and for which public expenditure resources have been allocated, will not free that public expenditure for other projects".
There is not any additionality there.

431
Toward the end of the paragraph—incidentally there is a printing error in it—it is stated:
"The Government therefore gives the assurance that it will not subtract privately financed roads from public sector provision on a scheme-by-scheme basis".
Those two statements do not appear to me to be totally in concert. Because it is a technical question, perhaps my noble friend will drop me a line on that specific and particular point in due course.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will no doubt forgive me if I do not follow him into the complications of the White Paper. I must confess that it lies unread on my desk. I too should like to ask the Minister a question. He spoke with pleasure of the conversion of diesel locomotion into electrical locomotion. I should like to know whether that means any increase in the freight capacity of the railways.
I must thank my noble friend Lord Underhill for introducing this debate and for saying what most of those who have spoken from this side of the House have echoed this afternoon. I should like to give them all red berets; they have proved the Guardian Angels of the hard pressed commuters. We do not need to be told that there is a transport crisis in this country. We suffer it day by day whether our journeys are short or long, in good or bad weather, and even when nobody is on strike. Each morning, as we listen to the news, we hear that an accident has blocked one or more of the motorways leading into London. It is such a commonplace occurrence that unless it is a horrific catastrophe there is no news value in telling us who was hurt or killed. The news value lies solely in the inconvenience that the accident causes to travellers.
Such accidents are so frequent that one can only deduce that our motorways are overcrowded, that the skills of even professional truck drivers are inadequate or that there is something wrong with the design of long vehicles. Certainly, those vehicles are driven too fast for their size, weight and braking power. If one wants to drive at 65 miles per hour (which is only 5 miles per hour below the legal limit) one finds oneself being overtaken by long vehicle after long vehicle, some of them doing more than 70 miles an hour. Driving in the centre lane or the overtaking lane, one finds a heavy vehicle dangerously close behind, snorting up one's exhaust.
Last Friday I had to make a trip to Manchester. I was warned by people who make that journey as often now as I used to make it that I should avoid the M.1 and the M.6, particularly as it was a Friday. I decided to travel by the Watling Street route, which is the old A.5. A motoring organisation told me to go to Richmond and pick up the North Circular road from there. That was pretty poor advice. One and a half hours passed before I was within approaching distance of the A. 5. Noble Lords can imagine the character reading that even the most benign of wives gives to a husband who chooses such a route, particularly on a hot Friday. In the end I managed to find a road that took me off the North Circular. It led me not to the A. 5 but on the the M.1.I endured
432
that for about 25 miles and then found my way to Watling Street. So had a lot of other drivers.
It is obvious that the A.5 is now being used to supplement the overcrowded M.1. It would be quite a good supplement if some dual carriageways were built to permit safe overtaking. The A.5 is a long straight road but it is narrow. If someone in front of you is driving slowly you are stuck there for quite a long period.
To return to one of London's problems, four years ago there were great debates in this House on the Local Government Bill. It was the Bill which destroyed the Greater London Council and put its principal roads under the Department of Transport. Despite the resistance of noble Lords, echoing that of Londoners in general, these roads were designated as trunk roads whose main function was to expedite long-distance through traffic. Ministers did their best to persuade us that any alarm we might feel about trunking was misplaced. Four years later all over Greater London there are hundreds of thousands of people who believe that such fears were not misplaced.
Perhaps because I live in south-west London I am among those who feel that this part of London is particularly under threat. Living there, we are all conscious of the dreaded North Circular Road which stretches in a great concrete arc on the other side of the Thames. There is a widespread belief, which words from the Department of Transport will not destroy, that the department still has lingering ambitions to produce a South Circular Road of similar character to the North Circular. That suspicion has been fuelled by traffic assessment studies set up by the Secretary of State five years ago.
Three of the four studies are devoted to the so-called South Circular Road and to the road joining it from the south coast. The consultants whom the department appointed were eminent firms of highway engineers. It would have been surprising if their instinctive response to the traffic problem had been other than to build newer better roads. In fact the options that the consultants proposed for further study are all based on widening existing roads at the expense of gardens and homes or building new roads through cherished open space, over railway tracks or through residential areas.
South London has reacted to these proposals with indignation as well as fear. In these quiet suburbs mass meetings have been held of a size previously unknown, and threatened neighbourhoods have presented to Ministers petitions bearing signatures from almost every household. Borough councils of different political complexion—Tory in Wandsworth, Labour in Lambeth and SLD in Richmond-upon-Thames—have joined together for the first time to present alternative options based on a more constructive approach than the pouring of concrete.
How does the department deal with these fears? The same kind of response has been received by individuals, organisations, councils and MPs. It is simply this. "Don't worry. If the consultants in their final report due this summer suggest any environmentally unacceptable option, the Secretary

433
of State—God bless him—will turn it down". Nevertheless, Ministers are adamant that the study of all the options must go on until finality. Nothing can be discarded until then, however solidly oppposed local opinion may be.
I have the good fortune to live by Barnes Common—the first substantial piece of green on the way out of London to the south-west. There are two options in the West London Assessment Study which suggest a new motor highway straight across our beautiful and beloved common. Confronted with this proposed despoliation, Ministers indicate that they would deplore it. Yet they refuse to curtail expenditure on the detailed development of the options. In the meantime whole communities live in fear that their environment will be shattered. And when they have to sell their houses they do so with great difficulty. To be fair, in the present state of the housing market it is difficult to say what contribution is being made to the blight by economic conditions, the penal rate of interest on mortgages, and what contribution is being made by the prospect of a new motor highway or road widening close at hand. There is no doubt that both factors play an important part in the property blight in our area.
The attitude of Whitehall is remarkably complacent. It says that there is no acknowledged blight until a road improvement has been officially decided upon. It is firmly believed locally that the Government have recommended that borough planning officers should not disclose the assessment studies to would-be purchasers unless they are specifically asked. Then, of course, they should tell the whole truth. This alleged advice not to disclose unless asked has been rejected by responsible borough councils, I am glad to say.
We need Ministers to assure us that they differentiate between the problems of upgrading road infrastructure between towns—which is very necessary—and the problems of traffic within towns. The problems of dealing with traffic congestion in Hammersmith Broadway are entirely different from those of building a better road to Manchester. There is now, I think, in Greater London a consensus which sees the alleviation of metropolitan traffic problems not in terms of new road widening but rather in terms of fair traffic management, imaginative traffic restraint, effective use of rail and of the Thames, and above all in much improved public transport.
New and wider roads solve congestion for a brief time. Then they generate new traffic. They beome clogged up and they spew more and more vehicles on to other stretches of road that are virtually impossible to improve. Let us never forget the traffic generation accomplished by the M.25, a valuable road nevertheless.
Millions of pounds have been pencilled in to cover the Department of Transport's possible ideas for the London roads that have been trunked. If only Ministers had the guts to shake off the obsessive hand of their department and spend the money on providing adequate public transport, we should have a better chance of keeping London moving.
I am not immediately enamoured of the proposals for inter-city toll roads. Nevertheless, I believe that
434
road pricing of some kind is the most likely solution of the urban problem created by there being too many vehicles and too little road space. Road pricing might both diminish the number of vehicles and make it possible to find the money and space for a superior system of public transport.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for instigating this timely debate. I only hope that when it is over the thoughts and ideas expressed here will not be relegated to a bureaucratic shelf and left to gather dust.
One of the main rules of public speaking, I was always told, was to make only one main point in each speech. But I am afraid that my remarks today are a collection of my meandering thoughts and would do better in a letter to an agony aunt, signed "Frustrated of Battersea". Unlike other noble Lords, I can claim no expertise in the problems of Greater London transport and traffic except that I was born in London and have lived here all my life. I have therefore witnessed the deterioriation of all forms of transport in the past 25 years. I have used all forms of transport during those years and do so today. I am therefore only a humble user of transport, both public and private, but it is clear to me that those who are responsible are seemingly unable to cope.
As a driver myself, I think it appropriate that I devote my few remarks to traffic problems. There are two obviously interrelated problems. One is parking, which was mentioned, but only in passing, by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The Minister told your Lordships that it was under review, about which I am delighted, and he said it was improving, which I doubt.
There are clearly not enough parking spaces available. Therefore they must be created. First, on long-term parking, garages must be built underneath the parks and squares of London such as that under Hyde Park at Marble Arch and those under Cavendish Square and Cadogan Place. While appreciating the maze of sewers, pipes, cables and Tube lines under London, if the car parks I have mentioned could be built, then so can others. I understand that the planning authorities have only recently made car parks under new buildings, both commercial and residential, a condition of planning consent. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that even though it is 20 years too late.
However, until more off-street parking is provided it is ridiculous to provide meters which allow only two or four hours' parking and when it is an offence to feed a meter. First, it is unenforceable. Secondly, if adhered to, it leads to motorists driving needlessly around looking for a new meter when the old one would have sufficed. I have yet to discover why so many gaps, marked by yellow lines, are left between parking bays. They are not for unloading or waiting, as there are signs forbidding that. Perhaps they are provided so that local residents can enjoy the view. Perhaps they are to allow pedestrians to get run over with greater ease. Alternatively, are they, as I suspect, merely thoughtlessness on the part of local authorities?

435
The Minister implied in his remarks that clamping was deemed a success. I do not doubt it; but for whom? For the clamp operators, it is, undoubtedly; for the police, possibly; but certainly not for the motorist. His life was already difficult enough before the authorities decided to help him by immobilising his car while he was going about his lawful business and then charging him a fortune and wasting his valuable time for the privilege of restoring his property to him.
The usual scenario is that a motorist, sometimes with a load to carry and sometimes with children, has searched fruitlessly for a parking space and finally, late for an appointment, has left his car in any space that he can find. Imagine his feelings when he returns to find his car clamped, leaving him unable to continue to his next appointment for which he is already late. Of course, if one is on a meter for which time has run out, the space would be unavailable for any other motorist probably for the remainder of the day because he will have been clamped. There is also a rule whereby if a meter is jammed, broken, full up or cannot be used, no car may park at that space for fear of being clamped even though the motorist's inability to pay was the meter operator's fault. Whoever thought that one up really is a fool.
The system is a complete abdication of responsibility whereby the authorities are saying, "We cannot cope, so we are passing the buck to you, the beleaguered motorist". Anyone would think that people drive and park in central London for their pleasure, that they have no business to be there. However, they should be helped, not hindered. The wide-scale removal of cars by the police is also comparatively new. It would work better if only cars causing an obstruction were moved. But that unfortunately is not the case.
I also suspect that the removal trucks cause more obstructions than the culprit vehicles. Certainly that is true outside my own house where new studs suddenly appeared in the road, blocking off 20 spaces where there was already a shortage. I was informed by an official at Wandsworth town hall that the police had requested the studs to make it safer for pedestrians to cross, even though there is no pedestrian crossing there. The studs could only be removed if the decision was reversed by a full council meeting. That example in itself is unimportant, but the rules surrounding and governing it are the work of a seriously unbalanced mind. That I may add, rather neatly brings me to my next point.
I have used the term "authorities" because like most people I have no real idea who is responsible for traffic in London and no means of communicating with them. I am aware that local authorities control the small roads and that central government control large ones, whereas the police manage the flow, or rather lack of flow, of traffic. But practically speaking it is a very haphazard way of going about things and must be reviewed urgently.
I suggest that the Government employ an intelligent life form to review the maze of regulations and responsibilities and appoint an overall accountable body to run our roads and traffic within
436
London itself. I also suggest that a special force of traffic police—I know that idea has been voiced before—be formed to administer those rules. Too many officers are tied up with clamping and dishing out parking tickets and they could be far more usefully employed elsewhere. Further, it does the police image no good to be continually ticking off normally law-abiding citizens. The police too hate continually badgering motorists for crimes which are not really very criminal.
Lastly, I should like to pose three questions to my noble friend. I do not ask for immediate answers, but he may wish to pose them to his experts. First, most of the great cities of this world are built on rivers, as is London, yet most that I have visited arrange the road system in such a way that the roads on the banks of those rivers which are main roads are one-way, rather in the way that Park Lane goes up one side and down the other. Perhaps that might be a good idea for London.
Secondly, there seems to be a gap in the rail system whereby it is becoming increasingly difficult for large numbers of passengers arriving by train at Victoria and Waterloo to get to the northern part of London, to the City, W1 or W2, and vice versa. Will my noble friend consider introducing direct rail shuttles underground or overground between the main railway stations in north and south London? I noted that this problem was discussed in the government proposals, but only for east to west travel.
Thirdly, I understand that the hoppa buses are a great success. They travel, as your Lordships may know, in circles within London itself. Unlike other cities which have similar schemes operating, in London the circle routes at no point touch or overlap. That is a mistake and means that passengers may need to take three journeys where two would be sufficient. Perhaps my noble friend will consider something that makes London unique among hoppa bus operators.
While the Government are to be congratulated on their White Paper for roads, I suggest to my noble friend that a rapid review followed by even rapider action is the order of the day for London's traffic chaos.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, some 20 years ago central Government commissioned a report entitled Traffic in Towns. Colin Buchanan was the consultant, an ex-civil servant who was appointed by the Government together with a team of notable people of the day as the steering committee. The report coincided with a period when Liverpool was beginning to get over its massive slum problem and was beginning to resolve it. In order to create a better life Liverpool had to create some commercial investment, so it took careful note of Buchanan's report and we complied, in agreement with central Government and I assume Whitehall, with the principles.The principles in the main were that we should separate through traffic from the centre; we should have some distributor traffic with the third hierarchy or level for the people who were using Liverpool for shopping or leisure activites.

437
We did that and made very good progress. In addition, we created perhaps the first modern railway service for commuters. We linked the Wirral with Liverpool. I do not think we could follow the principle of having traffic on the Mersey because it is rather wider than the Thames, but I noted the question raised by the noble Lord. There is also the question of bridges which in London are suffering from old age and are another problem. We complied with those principles in Liverpool and we were congratulated. However, we had the feet kicked from beneath us by the fall in investment in industry. Rightly or wrongly, central Government, which by now had changed their colour, decided for reasons best known to themselves, that the best thing for this country was a reduction in economic activity. They encouraged the decimation of industry in Liverpool.
In his speech earlier the Minister said that the need for transport has grown. That does not apply to all parts of the country, because the need for transport has not grown in Liverpool. In those 10 to 12 years the population in Liverpool dropped from 800,000 to 500,000. I can remember the day within the last two decades when on a Friday morning you could not walk down Castle Street—the street in front of the town hall—because of the population in the street. Nowadays on a Friday morning there is hardly any activity at all in that street. In fact, Liverpool is an illustration of what happens when the need for transport, the cause for transport, is taken away. When one takes away the economic lifeblood from an area the need for transport drops. It could happen in the rest of the country above a line from the Wash to South Wales.
The problem with our country—I hope your Lordships will note that I do not say "the Government"—is the consistent refusal, mainly supported by the Civil Service and the Whitehall mandarins whatever the political nature of the government, to look at the real problems, particularly the congestion in London. I quote Michael Heseltine who certainly is not of the same political colour as myself, when he said the other evening that the Government have to tackle the obstructionists in the Civil Service who will do everything they can to preserve their privilege in the City of London and the South-East.
I was doing a little light reading the other day concerning the future of King's Cross. I believe that I was reading a typical example of the wrong thinking on transport. Sir George Young, with whom I do not claim any political liaison, said that King's Cross—that is the development of the area not just of transport—fits in with the transport planning and the regional policies of this country.
What is King's Cross? It is not just a terminal because he went on to say that if it could be funded for planning gain, what was wrong with that. I will tell him what is wrong with that. If King's Cross in some ways contributes to relieving congestion, then to tie it with planning gain means that at the same time the same scheme will increase congestion. There is not a single body in the country prepared to sit down and analyse whether the benefit of reduced congestion is outweighed by the disbenefit of the
438
congestion created by the development that will go along with the King's Cross scheme. There is not a single body prepared to do that, but there was once: it was called the Greater London Council. The Government saw it as a political threat and sought to abolish it. But at least, whatever else it had, it had a strategy about the development of the Greater London area.
The Government decided to get a better body and find a better way of creating strategy for London. What was the result? The mountain trembled and out came the mouse of LRT. From the same King's Cross debate it appears that even the Government agreed that that is the strategy body for transport and transport allied matters in the Greater London area.
As a result of the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, I went yesterday to a meeting where we met representatives of LRT. I thought that I would try them out on this strategy business and see what they know and what they think about strategy. When the Greater London Council was trying to resolve the problems of congestion it had a strategy, part of which was called "fares fair". It was meant to use cheaper fares in order to divert people from using their motor cars and on to the public services. Some people thought it right and some thought it wrong. The Government thought it wrong, but it was a strategy. The council knew what it wanted. It did not want any more large roads to be built in London. It certainly did not want the deregulation of buses because it had the strategy of believing that in order to control the transport system in London there must be one central authority which took the decision by which others had to abide. It had a strategy.
There were planners among the representatives of LRT—planners involved with transport. My first question was, "Do you have a strategy about fares policy?". The chairman did not know whether he did, but his brief reply to that question was, "Fares should be affordable". I tried to press him on what he meant by "affordable" but he did not appear to believe that we had the time to go into that matter. Therefore, I assume that "affordable" means that while you can still get the fares they are affordable and you can keep running the system. As soon as the fares become unaffordable there will be no system because nobody will use it. That is supposed to be the strategy of the body appointed by this Government which are interested in the congestion in London.
I asked about deregulation. If ever there is a strategy everyone should know what it is. "Oh", said the chairman of this wonderful strategic body. He thought that deregulation had some benefits. I tried to press him on what they were but I did not make any headway with that subject either.
I then came to my third question about strategy. I asked, "Do you believe that LRT should have a policy input as regards major development schemes in the Greater London area? For example, there is a site on the south side of Vauxhall Bridge which will shortly be developed and there will be a choice. Either you can develop it for blocks of offices, which I suspect will be the case, or you can develop it as a large-scale housing site in which you can house

439
people who work in the City of London. In that way you can remove the necessity of congesting the tubes and buses by having them commute". That was in line with the Greater London Council's strategic policy for London.
I know that the chairman of this body has been in office for only a few days. But surely he must have experience of transport and development, otherwise why would the Govenment put him there? He is one of the experts whom the Government are bringing in to tell us how to do the things which local authorities have been tackling for a long time, so he must have some experience. His reply was, "I am not quite sure which site the noble Lord is talking about". So he could no make a comment.
Those are the three inquiries about strategy which I made of representatives of LRT. I do not condemn the answers. I condemn very much the fact that they did not have the faintest conception about what they were being asked. There was a planner present. All I can say is that if any planner in this country believes it is right that he should talk about transport infrastructure without at the same time talking about the development of major sites generating traffic or reducing it, then it is a prostitution of the word "planning" and it should not be allowed to go on.
That is the situation we have reached as regards congestion in London and congestion in the whole country. That is the situation as regards our relationship with Europe. It was said earlier that, because of the different guages involved, there is a danger that long-distance travelling trains in Europe would come through the tunnel and stop because we do not have the right infrastructure in our tunnels to take them to the North of England. That is perfectly true. What is more, it will remain true if British Rail has its way.
I have letters here from no less a person than the Chairman of British Rail. He says that British Rail will provide the infrastructure for places such as Liverpool which is one of the main ports in this country. It will provide the infrastructure for through lines to Europe if it is profitable and when the market is there. What a situation!
The whole of Europe is laying down lines with plenty of subsidy. There are many square miles of land ready for development, but we are allowing British Rail to talk about providing services when the market is there. We shall have lost out long before the tunnel is built because if those links are to be built they must be built now and the nation must take care of it, otherwise it will be more beneficial to run rail on the Continent because the distances are longer. We shall have effectively cut long distances in the United Kingdom by the thrombosis that exists in the South-East.
I make no apologies for talking about the details of traffic congestion. Everyone sitting in this House knows about the details of traffic congestion in London. They have known about it for years. I described it 25 years ago in a letter I wrote to the Evening Standard. Some civil servant complained about the possibility of being shipped to Siberia from somewhere around Liverpool. He said that he
440
was used to living a civilised life in capital cities such as London. I said, "Do you consider living like packed herrings in tubes, travelling for three hours each day to work and back, as civilised?" I think that he did and I think that people still do.
It is time that the Government began to look at the real issue of London Weighting. It costs no more to buy a pound of potatoes at Sainsbury's in London than in Merseyside and the North-West. It costs no more to buy a suit in London than in Liverpool. There are few items which can justify the high expenditure of London Weighting but it is very lucrative for the Civil Service here. One can weigh up the millions of pounds which are spent on London Weighting as a levy on the rest of the country. We now face the situation that when we move into Europe practically most of the United Kingdom will be barred from the benefits that that will bring because of the Government's refusal even to look at the possibility of providing the environment schemes in the Kent railway system. The Government and Margaret Thatcher and others who have been dragged along in her trail will not pay for that. There is not much chance of her paying for any improvements to the rest of the rail service in London.
Perhaps I may choose one item from this glossy White Paper. Paragraph 10 states:
"The Government has considered various ways to eliminate unacceptable levels of congestion on inter-urban roads".
They may have considered various ways but they have not considered them all. One such way sticks out a mile; namely, to remove from London all those who need not be there in order to leave some space for the people who must be there. That means resolutely tackling the question of decentralisation of the Civil Service.
The other document that I have is more relevant to the modern day because the Minister has been telling us how much the Government will spend on roads. It states that a new procedure will avoid the need for a Bill for each scheme. It relates to the private toll roads which are to be built somewhere. All I hope is that if any toll roads are to be built, they are built in the South and not in the North. To avoid the need for a Bill for each scheme means that there will not be any public inquiry or a chance for anybody to ask awkward questions.
The report states that the trunk road programme will be more than doubled and:
"The Government is committed to construction of a programme of this size and will be increasing annual expenditure on the road programme".
That seems quite a definite statement by the Government that the £12 billion will be reality. If one reads the small print it states:
"The amount and timing of additional expenditure will be for decision in the Public Expenditure Survey in the usual way".
That means that at the end of the day before the schemes are approved, the Treasury will have its say and will determine the amount. I only ask this one question so that the Minister can give me a straight answer: Do we rely on that £12 billion being committed or does it in effect mean that that amount will be spent providing that the Treasury agrees at the appropriate time?
5.52 p.m.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for initiating this debate. Perhaps I may say a few words about the Government's recently announced expanded road programme and about road design, a few words about the proposed rail link from Paddington to London Airport and, finally, a few words about the Great North Road—the A.1.
Why are the roads of this country in such a parlous state? Cynics will say, "Oh, there are no votes in roads". That is not so any more when the economy of the country is in danger of being greatly harmed by the lack of transport links. I am sorry to say that it is always a little too late and that it is a case of parsimony and unwillingness to spend money on roads.
How have other countries coped with that situation? The two dictators before the war gave Germany and Italy their motor roads and the French have built some very fine roads since the war. In this country we have very fine Roman roads but we have had the Dark Ages in between.
I must not bore your Lordships with too much history and many of your Lordships will remember more accurately than I what has happened. Many years ago we had the Road Fund and we had the horsepower tax. I am sorry to say that the money from the Road Fund which was supposed to be spent on roads, was raided by Mr. Winston Churchill when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and has been raided by Chancellors ever since.
After that there was a flat rate tax of £10 on all cars and then we had a petrol tax instead. Then we had both. The £50 road tax is now £100. There was a cry at one time for "no taxation without representation". The cry could still be "no taxation without roads". I have some rather unhappy things to say about the Department of Transport. I am sorry I have to say it but it needs saying and so I shall say it.
The M.1 has been totally full from nose to tail in all three lanes for some years now all the way up as far as the Coventry and Birmingham turn-off. I ask myself whether the officials in the Department of Transport ever leave their offices to go and have a look at the state of that road. The congestion has not come about suddenly but has crept up on us year by year and it has been apparent and obvious what the result would be.
Perhaps I may now turn to the design of roads. Unfortunately, the Preston By-Pass on the M.6 was designed all those years ago with two lanes. The M.1 near London was designed with two lanes, as was the M.5. At enormous expense and disruption all those roads had to be widened to three lanes. Again, very recently, parts of the new M.40 were going to be built in 1989 to a two-lane standard. I am thankful that that has been changed and that it will have three lanes; that is marvellous.
I am afraid that the department will like this even less. I must say that it is designing dangerous roads at present. I mean the sort of by-pass road which is almost straight but there is a long bend in the road. The public are deceived into thinking that it is safe
442
to overtake at the legal limit of 60 miles per hour. Someone coming in the opposite direction is also deceived and believes that it is quite safe to overtake at that same speed. The approach speed is 120 miles per hour and there have been and, I am afraid, will be some terrible accidents.
Perhaps I may quote from an article in the Financial Times of Monday 15th May. This article is about Devon and the West Country and in particular the North Devon Link Road. It states:
"The road is in the right place and goes to the right place. It begins at junction 27 on the M5, just south of Taunton, and is now complete for some 25 miles to the approaches to South Molton".
The next part of the article is irrelevant. It then goes on to say:
"But the road is neither what the transport operator nor the private driver wants or needs. It begins well enough with a dual carriageway which is akin to motorway standards as far as Tiverton. Thereafter, it is for the most part either a three- or two-lane carriageway.
"Where it is two-lane, it can be dangerous, as the skid marks on the road already testify. Where it is three lanes, it can also be almost as dangerous because the road winds and dips and is frequently blind to on-coming traffic, encouraging drivers to take chances.
"The road, in the short time since its opening, has already claimed one fatality and locals are drawing comparisons with the nearby Ilminister bypass on the A303 in Somerset, which has also been built as a single carriageway in each direction, and which has seen the deaths of three people.
"With either slow vehicles (of which there are a lot) or heavy transport on the North Devon Link road, traffic quickly builds up in long queues. Frustrations lead drivers to take high-risk chances. Accidents are inevitable.
"Why the Government should have been so penny-pinching is difficult to understand".
I seriously suggest that, for safety reasons, all new roads from now onwards should be built to dual carriageway standards. Also may we have motorway anti-glare barriers built into the central reservations? It is possible to make a six-hour journey at night on motorways and be faced with a wall of head-lamps coming in the opposite direction. That is very tiring and very wearing to the driver; and a tired driver is a dangerous driver.
The Government's expanded road programme sounds very good indeed and I should be grateful and delighted that the Government are to spend so much money. It would be ungrateful and ungracious of me not to be delighted. However, I must tell your Lordships that instead I am horrified at what is about to happen. The Government propose to add a fourth lane to various motorways. The current example of adding a fourth lane to a motorway is, of course, the M.25—on the stretch from the A.3 at Wisley to the Staines turn-off. No bridges have had to be altered but great disruption has taken place and the road is still not finished.
Do your Lordships realise—the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned this—that all the bridges on the M.25 and, indeed, on the M.1, will have to be altered and reconstructed because there is no room for a fourth lane without rebuilding them? I ask your Lordships to think of the chaos which will ensure throughout the country.
I have even worse news. This is a 10-year programme but by the year 1999 or the year 2000

443
the increase in traffic will have caught up with these proposed fourth lanes. All that money will have been spent in vain. It will have been wasted. Therefore, what are we going to do? I suggest that there is only one thing that we can do. I know that there will be cries of horror, but we must build an eight lane motorway alongside—either inside or outside—the existing M.25 and another alongside the M.1, at any rate as far as the Coventry and Birmingham turn-offs. When it is built—probably not for 10 years—that new eight-lane motorway will be for traffic travelling in one direction only. All that will then be necessary will be to take away the central reservation of the existing motorway and we shall then be left with a beautiful seven-or eight-lane motorway for traffic travelling in the other direction. Such a project would save very much expense and disruption. The finished road will, for the very first time in this country, be ahead of the projected increase in traffic. Therefore, we should build it before the land at the junctions is covered with supermarkets and industrial estates.
At this point, I ask that we should not touch any of the bridges on the M.6. These were built by Sir James Drake, the county surveyor and bridgemaster of Lancashire at the time the M.6 was built. The bridges are all different. Each is beaufitul in it own right. Each bridge has been carefully placed where it is and I suggest that the bridges should be left alone.
The proposed new rail link to London Airport is desirable and much needed. It took 40 years before a railway ever went anywhere near London Airport. What other country in the world would build an airport and not until 40 years later think about how to get people to and from it? I suppose the problem was to decide who was going to pay for it. It is easy to be wise after the event, but surely if everyone had chipped in something it could have been done. I understand that the new link will follow the line of the former Great Western Railway track and then turn left. If the problem is the Green Belt I can only say that all railways radiating out of London of course cross the Green Belt. The railways were here first and the Green Belt came later. All aircraft coming into and leaving London Airport most probably cross the Green Belt. I cannot see what harm a railway crossing the Green Belt can possibly do. Air passengers must be given the means to reach central London.
Finally, I refer to the Great North Road—the A.1. Many of your Lordships, and particularly those who live in Yorkshire, will probably know that Great North Road better than I do. This road has a great history and it is possible that English Heritage might be interested in it. The road can go back to coaching days and the days of the highwaymen. At the beginning of this century the reliability runs by the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost from London to Edinburgh were carried out on the Great North Road. Those runs produced the finest and most reliable cars in the world.
In the 1920s and 1930s the great cars of the day—the Bentleys, Invictas and Lagondas—were given their head on that road. We then had the
444
post-war period when the road was converted to dual carriageway. It is a beautiful road on which to drive. It is straight, it is fast and it follows the contours of the countryside. It is very different from a motorway; it is not on an embankment and it does not suffer from crosswinds. One is not being pushed along by traffic behind you that wishes to go ever faster. It is possible to drive in a relaxed manner on it. By all means give some of the roundabouts the under or over treatment, but please do not turn the A.1 into a motorway. If the M.1 could be improved in the manner I have suggested then perhaps the A.1 can be allowed to remain as it is.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, is indicative of the very wide-ranging debate that we have already had. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the subject. All of us in your Lordships' House experience transport problems in London as we struggle to get into Parliament day after day. For some there is the struggle too to get home again in the early hours of the morning. But there are problems in other areas. In the north of England there is a feeling that the balance of attention between the North and the South is in favour of the South. Therefore it it perhaps not surprising to your Lordships that I intend to talk about the North and the problems of Yorkshire.
A number of your Lordships have already mentioned the White and Green Papers on roads. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to a number of other government publications on aspects of transport. But we have had no government publication on an integrated transport policy. Roads are not synonymous with transport; they are but one part of it. The last government publication on an integrated transport policy was the 1977 White Paper which covered the whole range of forms of transport. It included the social and economic consequences of transport policies and their implications for national and local government.
Neither of the two recent government publications has attempted to do this. They are too limited in their scope. We are very much in need of an updated strategy and a policy for an integrated transport system. Moreover, the publication of a roads policy on its own pre-empts the possibility of a comprehensive transport policy. For example, in the north of England recently consultations have been taking place under Section 40 of the Transport Act 1985 on the subject of the freight distribution rail network for the North in preparation for the Channel Tunnel. The outcome of those consultations I do not know. I ask whether the opinions expressed have been taken into account in the publication of the roads White Paper? Surely a rail freight network for the North will have an effect on the kind of road network that we need.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, believes that the bulk of freight will be carried by road. I am not so sure that he is correct. I dare say that manufacturers in Yorkshire will welcome the announced improvements to the M.25 motorway because they

445
will see them as being of some assistance in getting their freight through to the Channel. But we need to assess whether what is proposed is the best way of moving freight. I see no evidence that this factor has been taken into account.
We have to ask how far improvements in the road programme will work against a public transport system. I can illustrate this from an example in my own locality. About five years ago there were plans to close the local commuter rail line from Ilkley to Leeds and from Ilkley to Bradford. There was such an outcry led by the local rail passenger users' committee that the scheme was abandoned. A modified curtailment of services was introduced instead. But so tremendous has been the growth in the use of the line that the service has had to be extended beyond what it was a few years ago. The line could have been closed so easily on tenuous economic grounds. Additional cars and motor cycles would have clogged up and added to the pollution of the Wharfe and Aire valleys. There would also have been the cost of new road construction and repair. All that could have happened in my locality had the road improvement policy been introduced before the growth of traffic on that line.
The Department of Transport is producing forecasts of the extent of traffic on the roads. Those forecasts have been widely criticised as being inaccurate and complacent. It seems that they are also totally inadequate in their scope. For example, I tried to find out what the forecasts were for West Yorkshire and how they matched up to the road network. I was unable to obtain any information; I was told that it is not readily available on a regional basis.
We may also ask whether environmental and energy factors are taken into account and whether they are balanced by one system of transport against alternative modes of transport. I very much doubt it. Do the forecasts take account of predicted growth of rail usage and of the comparative benefits between the two? Again, I very much doubt it. I understand that the Department of Transport assessment methods used to evaluate investment in roads have an inbuilt bias against railways. For example, road schemes are assessed mainly on the theoretical benefits and savings whereas rail projects have to show a financial profit.
I understand that consideration of where the extra traffic likely to be generated by the new roads will go and the subsequent disadvantages arising from bottlenecks and congestion created further up the line is largely ignored in the evaluation. Surely these are all factors that should be taken into account and form the basis on which investment in road, rail and public transport is made.
I am not opposed to investment in road improvements. Much of the investment proposed in the White Paper is long overdue. It is symptomatic of our transport problems that new infrastructure and services, rather than being planned and introduced simultaneoulsy or alongside the economic growth about which the Minister boasted in his introductory speech, are to follow that growth. The fact is that local authorities and central
446
government agencies in trying to plan for economic growth in the past few years have been sadly held up by lack of investment in our roads and transport system.
Many of the schemes mentioned in the White Paper cover West Yorkshire, and in the context of the Government's approach they are badly needed. I would however enter some caveats. First, the schemes will bring additional environmental problems, such as those mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. This is a great worry. Secondly, if they are not to be accompanied by parallel investment in rail and public transport the end result will be merely to fill up more roads with more cars. We have been told on many occasions that this country is behind Europe in growth in car ownership and in the construction of new roads. We are also behind Europe in our investment in rail. No matter what the noble Lord might say about our rail system being the most efficient in Europe, it is a fact that in France and in Germany investment and new railway construction are far ahead of ours.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, recommended a capital grant to British Rail to help with the investment that is very much required. I should like to think that this could be a possibility because British Rail is being starved of funds. Although the Government say that, at £650 million investment this year is the highest for 20 years, little comfort can be drawn from this fact. As my noble friend Lord Underhill said, no public money is available for this £650 million investment. British Rail will have to find its own money. It will have to find it through the sale of property, by further increases in already high fares or by cutting staffing and maintenance costs.
British Rail states that the cost-cutting does not jeopardise passenger safety. One hopes that that is so, although accidents in recent months have raised a question mark over that statement. It would be a great pity if safety on British Rail were to be jeopardised. There is no doubt that in the past travelling by train has been much safer than travelling by car. On average, deaths on the road per passenger mile travelled are 10 times as high as those on the railways.
We do not often look into the cost of accidents. However, an answer to a question asked in another place on 1st July 1980 indicated that road accidents cost a tremendous amount of money. If any noble Lord would like to check cols. 515 and 516 of the Official Report of another place for that date and work out the sums involved, it will be found that in terms of 1979 prices the cost of road accidents reaches the staggering sum of £ 1.7 billion per annum.
A great saving could be made by further investment in British Rail as opposed to further investment in the roads. There is also a need for further investment in public transport systems. My noble friend Lady Fisher referred to the public transport system in the West Midlands. Public transport in West Yorkshire has been equally successful despite deregulation. It is the only metropolitan area where passenger usage has remained as high since deregulation as it was prior

447
to it. This has been achieved by co-operation between the passenger transport executives, local authorities, industry and users. A system of integration and co-operation has been built up which I hope will not be interfered with in the future.
Despite this, however, congestion continues to grow in the urban areas of West Yorkshire as in other areas. One of the means of coping with this congestion is to improve the passenger transport system and to introduce more modern methods of passenger transport. Bradford, for instance, is going in for a more traditional system, while Leeds is looking at the possibility of a light rapid transport system. Both cities, if they are to cope with their problems, will need public assistance—assistance both from local authorities and from national funds. Subsidies are perhaps not a popular theme with the Government at the present time, but it we are to solve our transport problems and if we are to cope with the problem of congestion, there must be greater public investment in new and modern services.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for securing yet another debate on transport at a time when the nation is probably more concerned about the subject than ever before. While the noble Lord's Motion gives us great scope for a wide-ranging debate, I wish to confine my remarks to policies affecting bus operators in particular.
Although the number of passengers using buses has declined since deregulation, many of us who know the industry hope that this decline will in time be reversed. In this way the bus can play an ever increasing role in meeting at least part of the total demand for transport which is growing all the time. Regrettably, we seem to be getting further and further behind with our transport statistics. The latest I have to hand are for 1987. These show that for road transport alone total passenger miles travelled were 4·8 per cent. higher than in 1986 and 30·7 per cent. higher than in 1977. For all transport the growth was only slightly lower. What the figures for 1988 will be I do not know. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to enlighten us.
Demand for transport is growing fast. Some but not all of this can be catered for efficiently by the bus, particularly in urban areas. As we have seen in the past, bus operators, local authorities and passenger transport authorities and executives have responded well to the challenges of deregulation. The industry is changing, the market is still settling down and patronage fell by 2·3 per cent. outside London in 1987–88 compared with the previous year.
However, there are three possible policy changes which may cloud the horizon and lead to a further decline in bus travel and even more cars on our congested roads. First, the rebate on fuel duty which the industry receives for its local services appears to be under scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Noble Lords may not appreciate that the operators of local bus services are entitled to reclaim the duty they pay on their
448
fuel. That amounted to £118 million in 1987–88, of which £18 million was reclaimed by London Buses Ltd. That represented 20 per cent. of its operating deficit. That rebate, which has been given for over 20 years, is now being questioned.
The industry makes a positive contribution towards relieving traffic congestion. One bus can carry 100 people in the space occupied by three or four cars, which can carry only 16 people. The bus uses scarce road space six times more efficiently than the car. Some external support is therefore justified on a national basis, in addition to the specific support for loss-making socially necessary services which can be given by local authorities and passenger transport authorities under the Transport Act 1985. The industry has just suffered a major cost increase in the last Budget which has driven fares up. That was the increase in vehicle excise duty on buses and coaches. It does not deserve another blow from ending or restricting fuel duty rebate.
Preserving fuel duty rebate will also help competition between modes as the railways pay only a nominal duty on their diesel fuel for passenger services and there is no duty of which I am aware on the electricity they use. That is right and proper, but we must ensure that the bus industry is in a similar position so that it can compete fairly.
Secondly, there has been a threat for several years now that the Government will be obliged to impose a positive rate of VAT on all public transport fares, including bus fares. That will have to be passed on to the passenger in full—indeed, more than in full, as I shall explain shortly—because operators can already reclaim the VAT they pay out. The problem we would have, if VAT were imposed at, say, 6 per cent., is that fares would have to increase by more than 6 per cent. to bring in extra revenue to pay the VAT. The reason, of course, is that as fares rise the number of passengers is reduced and revenue always increases by less than the fares increase. This is very complex but nevertheless it is true.
Thus, we may see a 10 per cent. fares increase as a result of imposing VAT. But, unfortunately, the effects will not stop there. I understand that VAT will affect concessionary fares for the elderly, the disabled, and children. Moreover, what is worse, it may in some circumstances increase the cost to local authorities of funding these concessions at a time when their budgets will be under pressure because of the community charge.
Again, this is a complicated subject and I do not intend to detain your Lordships with detail. However, I hope, first, that the Government will continue to fight vigorously in Europe to keep public transport zero-rated for VAT. Secondly, if we are forced to place this additional burden on passengers I hope that the Government will take every administrative measure they can to reduce the adverse impact on passengers and on local authorities so that patronage can be maintained.
Thirdly, I am more than a little concerned about concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled in particular. Provision for those fares was built into the Transport Act 1985, and, as a recent report from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has

449
shown, this has worked well. Those who prophesied the end of concessions after deregulation were, thankfully, shown to be wrong. However, concessionary fares schemes will be coming under pressure, like everything else, as the Local Government Finance Act begins to take effect. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that his colleagues will ensure—as they did so well in 1986—that the cost of maintaining concessions is taken into account in giving the local authorities concerned central government grants towards their expenditures.
These concessions are invaluable to the many elderly and disabled people who benefit from them. The income they generate is a vital part of most bus operators' revenue and it goes to help maintain service levels for everyone. However, the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Transport, when appearing before the House of Commons Transport Committee last year, stated that some authorities were too generous with bus operators over concessionary fares. I know of no evidence to support that and I view the matter with concern as it appears that the department is attacking the system of concessionary fares. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to reassure the House on the matter and that he will be able to set the record straight concerning alleged generosity to operators.
By continuing fuel duty rebate, opposing VAT on fares and ensuring adequate resources for local authorities as regards concessionary fares, the Government can make a positive contribution to the future of the bus industry. Many solutions to our transport problems can only be implemented over several years. In the meantime, we must continue to suffer delays and congestion. However, the bus industry is flexible and responsive to changing transport needs. It is able to make an immediate contribution towards improving the transport network. I sincerely hope it will not be hampered by the problems to which I have alluded today.
Finally, I should like to add my observations on all the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. I believe that the subject she raised in the context of the West Midlands is part of a wider issue. A further complication which the Government have thrown into the metropolitan counties issue is the Minister's hint, made just before Christmas, that he was considering whether to break up the public transport companies in the metropolitan areas into smaller units.
The noble Baroness outlined the case against this proposal and I should like to draw attention to the difference of direction between what the Minister wants to achieve with those measures and what is happening in the market-place. In the market, bus companies are finding it necessary and desirable to group into large units. One suspects that in the future most competition will be between huge operators which are equally matched, rather than between David and Goliath.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into Badgerline Holdings found that, so far as concerned the passengers on commercial services, the merger was in the public interest because it gave
450
passengers inter-availability of tickets and a higher level of service. Why, in those circumstances, do we wish to create smaller companies which will quickly form again into larger units? I hope that this possibly unnecessary diversion from the business of running buses to satisfy the consumer will not be allowed to get out of hand.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we should all congratulate my noble friend Lord Underhill on having chosen this subject for debate. In transport terms, it is one of the best debates that we have had for a long time. We should also thank the Minister for speaking immediately after my noble friend and for giving us some helpful figures. He was possibly a little complacent. He seemed to be saying that he was unaware of the fact that London, especially, is grinding to a halt and that some of the roads out of London, in particular the M.1, is in the same position.
With the White Paper being published last week and the Green Paper this week, it was inevitable that they would form an important part of the debate. I should like to deal with some of the points raised. From looking at the annex to the White Paper one gets some idea of the problem that we face in this country. The minimum forecast increase between 1988 and 2025—just under 40 years—in vehicle miles travelledis 83 per cent. and the highest is 142 per cent.
The White paper is something of a panic gesture designed to convince us that the Government are doing, or proposing to do, something to deal with our present congestion. At present there is a big shortfall in our ability to meet existing demand. We should also consider the classic case of the M.25. It showed how much error has occurred in estimating future traffic. It would therefore seem logical to assume that in 2025 we shall need at least two and a half times as much road capacity as exists today, just to stay where we are. In 40 years' time there will be another debate when we will ask what we should do about having more roads. That is the logical conclusion of the report.
Paragraph 5 of the annex states:
"The above forecast will be used in appraising motorway and trunk road schemes. They will play an important role in the assessment of whether the benefits from a scheme over its lifetime justify the initial cost and standard of provision".
That is a fair statement, but it applies to the country as a whole whereas the real problem is that schemes may vary either above or below an estimate. The PAC's conclusions published last week make it plain that it has, to put it kindly, little confidence in departmental estimates. As your Lordships will be aware, that committee is a committee of senior Members of the House. It is one of the prestigious committees.
It is frank, not to say brittle, about its attitude towards the department. In paragraph 14 of its conclusions it states:
"We do not accept—nor do we believe many of those now suffering congested roads would accept—that the Department's traffic flow forecasting is as reliable as it could and should be. We find their explanations of the variations that have occurred to be unconvincing; and we are concerned at the Department's

451
reluctance to accept that there is a serious problem, which we feel verges on complacency. It is difficult to have confidence in present forecasting methods when traffic flows on some roads have so quickly and so substantially exceeded the forecasts on which design standards were based. Whilst we recognise that traffic forecasting is not an exact science and there are many factors to be taken into account, we strongly recommend that the Department fundamentally review their forecasting methods to seek out the underlying causes of the various inaccurancies that have arisen and apply the lessons that emerge".
I have not read that out to be vindictive to the department. I merely ask: on what basis can we take the figures that we have been given? In practically every case examined the figures were way below the actual traffic that used the road once it had been in use for over a year.
In paragraph 16 of its conclusions, the PAC severely criticised not just the figures but the presentation of the forecasting and outrun of the schemes. It suggests that the methodology gives "a misleadingly favourable picture". Those are strong words from such a committee. The example it gave was of a section of the M.25 where the forecast was 49,000 vehicles per day for the year after the opening. That was an underestimate. The figure turned out to be almost 100,000 vehicles a day in the year after the opening. Statistically that would surely mean that there was an underestimate of 100 per cent., but the department's method of expression, which is new to me, was that there was a 50 per cent. variation in actual flow.
Instead of saying that the department's estimate was half of what happened, it took the higher figure and said that it was 50 per cent. less than the flow. I understand that the Department of Transport is now going to incorporate the results of the before and after examination of its new schemes rather more accurately. That is important when we consider the Green Paper New Roads by New Means, which was published just the other day, because private money will want accurate forecasts before tenders are forthcoming for any new schemes.
The basic premise of the private roads paper is false. There is an illogical jump from tolled estuarial crossings to special roads. In a short paper, the RAC showed how unreal is the whole idea of tolled roads.
I shall give my own reasons. All the many great road bridges built since the last war have tolls. They are monopolies of a sort. The detour by land to avoid tolls on the Seven and Forth bridges and in the Mersey Tunnel is considerable, and one must make the choice whatever the traffic conditions. One has to decide early whether one is going to use the toll roads, bridges or tunnels. One assumes that the only real benefit of private roads will be at peak, or near peak, traffic times. At other times, or at night, there will still be the old trunk roads or perhaps even the old-fashioned motorways. The construction industry will no doubt give serious thought to the Government's ever-so-tentative proposals, but as the Financial Times said in its leader yesterday it is difficult to see private industry taking on the risks when the Government have just announced a doubling of the public sector programme. In other words, even if it just sits back, it looks as though the private construction industry will have plenty of
452
work for the next few years if the Government go ahead with their programme.
One of the points raised by a number of your Lordships was that of additionality. I suddenly came across the additionality paragraph when I was reading the Green Paper. I said to myself that the Treasury must have read the Green Paper and decided to toughen it up a bit because paragraph 44 makes it absolutely clear that additionality will be taken away from the total, whatever is allowed. So I do not think that there is any benefit to the consumers unless there is the view that there will be much greater efficiency and the roads will be built much more cheaply.
The Government are really only committed to expenditure of £25 million, to be paid to the planners and consultants to provide schemes which, as was said in the other place, could only be used as window dressing for the next general election. The schemes will probably be just about ready to come out in a nice brochure before the next election. If some noble Lords think that that is cynical, then I feel that there is a great basis for cynicism in the whole production of White Papers.
The White Paper and the Green Paper are beautifully produced but the substance is thin and I doubt whether they will be remembered for very long. The White Paper contrasts, to its disadvantage, with the admirable document of the CBI's taskforce, the report on transport in London. In it there is an attempt to deal with the problem in the round. I must echo the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on the motor car. He said that we must get people out of cars onto public transport and that the car must be tamed.
I am sorry that the CBI did not tackle what is undoubtedly the biggest single problem with the motor car—the unnecessary company car. I just do not believe that we can ignore the non-commercial company car and the problems those cars create on the roads in our major cities every morning and evening, particularly at rush hour periods. They not only take up a great deal of space on the roads, going out to the suburbs of all the cities, including London in particular, but also because they are heavily subsidised they lie in the streets or in subsidised parking places and make it impossible for the occasional user even to attempt to come into city centres for shopping or personal business.
We are aware that the debate on the Order Paper is about traffic in London. Knowing other cities in the country—and other people have spoken about their own areas—I readily accept that London is a special place. On the other hand, many of the problems of London are becoming visible in Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh and any other heavily populated area in the country. We can all learn something from the mistakes of London and even more from any successful applications of the trial solutions. A vital first step is some overall body to examine transport as a whole in London.
Again, the CBI report gives the quite staggering figures that 90 per cent. of Greater London roads are administered by 33 local highway authorities. On top of that there are British Rail and London

453
Regional Transport, and, as the report says, this is a situation unparalleled in any other single major city in the world. We have had a large number of extremely good contributions today but I believe that at the end of the day we shall solve the problems of urban transport and make our cities fit to live in again by heavy expenditure on public transport. That is the only solution for major conurbations. The car has its place. It is a great boon when properly used. But when wrongly or selfishly used it can be a burden on all of us.
If we look at America and other parts of the world we see what they have found. In certain places in America one is not allowed in the fast lane unless there are at least three people in the car. I myself saw the Golden Gate bridge and was told that the authorities have reached the stage of buying mini-buses to take people over the bridge from the communities because they cannot handle the full amount of traffic if each person travelled over on his own in his own car. San Francisco cannot take the cars that arrrive in its streets. Rome must do something. Traffic there is very severely restricted if not totally prohibited from the city centre. Athens has alternative day permits for motor cars for the centre of the city.
We may not like restrictions. Neither do people in those countries, but sheer necessity has forced them on people and I hope that we shall be far-sighted and look at public transport in our conurbations. I am by no means anti-motor car but there is no doubt that the first way to tackle traffic is to accept that there will be restrictions on the motor car. In order to make that palatable, particularly in our major cities, we must spend a great deal of money on public transport, perhaps not receiving any return for quite a long time.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this debate has certainly lived up to its potential in covering such a wide range of transport topics, and doing so in such commendable depth. These are important topics since they affect the fabric of our everyday lives and the performance of the economy on which we all so obviously depend. So I should like to try to respond to as many points as my time allows, but I am quite conscious that with the large number of matters raised I shall not be able to answer every point that every noble Lord has made.
I start with the call from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to encourage more use of rail for freight transport. Of course we believe that fair competition is the best service that meets consumers' needs best. We accept however that there may be environmental reasons for keeping some lorries off unsuitable roads and since 1974 a total of £65 million has been paid in Section 8 grants. We estimate that this keeps well over 3 million lorry journeys a year off unsuitable roads.
It would be unrealistic, though, to expect a massive shift to rail freight and we have to accept that rail is not suitable for all freight transport needs,
454
particularly over short distances. However, we see new opportunities with the opening of the Channel tunnel. There would be considerable journey time savings from Scotland and the North of England and indeed from Liverpool. It is for BR to develop its commercial strategy. It is still working on the matter but it envisages through services from the regional centres, using the West London line around London. That provides more than enough capacity for the foreseeable future, so new freight lines around London are not needed at present.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Ezra, referred to the recent CBI report on the costs of congestion. The Government always welcome constructive proposals for improvements and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be meeting the authors of the report shortly.
I would just comment that the basis of the CBI's claim about the real cost of congestion is unclear and we do not believe that there is any way of making accurate overall estimates of congestion costs. In addition, the report gives inadequate recognition to the high levels of investment in public and road transport systems and the major studies currently in hand. Its call for greater cohesion within the DTp also ignores the London Passenger Transport Group, which my right honourable friend chairs and which oversees the two rail operators in planning and providing services.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael, referred not just to the criticism by the National Audit Office of the department's traffic forecasting which is now being repeated by the Public Accounts Committee. My right honourable friend will of course study the PAC's report carefully, but Roads for Prosperity, the White Paper, addresses many of the PAC's concerns, notably that new higher National Road Traffic Forecasts have been announced and there are included proposals to widen the M.25.
A large number of noble Lords referred to the new roads in inner and central London, and particularly the assessment studies. So far as the roads in inner and central London are concerned, the statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on transport in London said:
"Present and future traffic management measures will help to improve road conditions in London, but new road construction will also be necessary if Londoners are to satisfy their transport choices and needs, if forecast demand is to be suitably accommodated and if further economic development in London is to be attained. But any proposals for new construction will need to recognise the physical and environmental constraints on road building in London, particularly in the central area, and the high cost of overcoming them satisfactorily".
The assessment studies were looking at public transport as well as potential road options. The objective was to bring improvements, including improvements to the environment. We have said that we will not support schemes which do more harm than good. We have also said that we will not be building new motorways in London.
The Transport in London booklet, which accompanied the statement, said:
"There is no point in building new roads into central and inner London if their main effect would be to cause commuters to switch from rail to road".

455
That would not be the point of any schemes arising from the assessment studies. The purpose of the assessment studies is to provide a range of options for relieving the particularly severe transport problems in the study areas. The roads in inner London do not just serve commuters, there are freight and other working trips during the day, and longer distance traffic trips with origin and destination outside the centre, and of course the necessary bus routes.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, urged us to drop the damaging options from the assessment studies as soon as possible. The options published by consultants were of course broad outlines of their ideas and they were not departmental proposals. The consultants are pressing ahead to reach full and objective assessment of options.We agree with the noble Lord that we want the anxiety and uncertainty reduced as soon as possible.
We have said that we shall not support schemes which, as I have said, do more harm than good. We expect to receive the consultants' reports in the late summer. The reports will contain recommendations and proposals for minimising the effects. There will then of course be a period of public comment before we decide which, if any, of the consultants' ideas should be taken forward. All options will be considered within a framework which assesses them against jointly-agreed objectives and takes full account of their environmental impact. All new road schemes are subject to environmental appraisals and cover such issues as land take, housing loss, travel noise, visual impact, air pollution, community severance and accidents.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also talked about roads in London and the need for new roads in London. They are primarly orbital to improve journeys at and around central London and to improve access to developing areas such as Docklands in east London. Six of the department's trunk road schemes in London are added as part of the Government's Action for Cities initiative to help regenerate the inner cities. Railways cannot always compete with roads for meeting demand for transport in outer London as they have insufficient flexibility.
A number of noble Lords talked about our proposals for private finance of roads as outlined in the White Paper, New Roads by New Means. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether there would be congestion because of toll collection, and I think cited the Dartford Tunnel. No, we do not believe that that will be the case. The design of roads and links to them will be subject to the department's standards on environmental and safety effects of road building, and of course the private sector would have to attract customers and would lose business if entry to the route was congested.
I have to say that when I visited the Dartford Tunnel about a year ago when the Bill was going through your Lordships' House, I was careful to see what congestion was caused by the toll booths. My impression was that it was very slight indeed. It was only as long as it took to pay one's money. There was a tailback on both sides of the bridge on that
456
day, and it was quite obvious that the toll booths were not the cause of that tailback.
The noble Lord also asked whether there would be first and second-class road users based on income. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, covered that point as well. No, the level of tolls has yet to be seen. The promoters will have to attract a lot of users to cover costs. All road users will benefit from reduced congestion, including people on "free" roads.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked how private sector roads would link into the overall road strategy. The Government's objective of course is to extend the role of the private sector in providing transport infrastructure. The Government do not have a monopoly of ideas. We wish to harness the entrepreneurial management skills of the private sector to complement the public programme. We are confident that that will mean more roads overall. The effect of the proposal on the existing road network will be one of the factors considered by the Secretary of State in deciding which proposals should proceed.
The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth also referred to the question of additionality, which is such an important one in this issue. The Green Paper states that in future we will not subtract privately financed roads from the public sector provision on a scheme-by-scheme basis.
This is a major advance. Obviously the contribution from the private sector to road provision will be taken into account in determining the overall government provision, as it is indeed in housing, but this of course is some time in the future when we have a number of schemes up and running.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked about the intellectual property rights of promoters of schemes. We believe that commercially confidential ideas will be protected. Competitions will be on the basis of general terms for corridors, not on the basis of one firm's innovative technical ideas. A company initiating a scheme will benefit from the head start in the competition. If they have what looks like a new idea, we guarantee that they will go on the shortlist. We know of no companies deterred on this basis from bidding, and we would urge them to come forward. But I would remind your Lordships that this is a consultation Green Paper and that we wish to hear interested parties' views on this and other subjects. Some of those views we have heard this afternoon.
My noble friend also asked whether there will be sufficient alternative "free" routes to the toll route. I cannot say in advance how many toll roads there would be. We shall continue however to build and maintain an adequate road network for all types of traffic, and we expect toll roads to complement the public network. The effect on the public network will be a factor that we shall have to take into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, asked about having a procedure which avoids the need for a Bill for each scheme, and whether that meant that there would be no public inquiry. No, of course parliamentary time is limited. It is best to have tailor-made alternative order-making procedures as

457
with publicly-financed roads. Orders will be required, as now, to set the line of the road, side-road provisions, compulsory purchase and of course tolling. There will be a public inquiry if there are objections. As with existing procedures, those affected will have the right to put their views.
A number of the noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, raised the need for a strategic authority for transport in London. We do not believe that there is a need for a strategic body to be set up. There has never been a single transport authority. It is not the answer to congestion and transport problems. We want action to tackle the problems and not bureaucracy, and the roads programme and the studies commissioned are evidence that action is in hand.
I would remind your Lordships that it is only four years since the GLC was abolished. That was the authority for London traffic, and indeed ran London Underground. If it had made such a good job of it in London, I have no doubt that we would be enjoying the benefits now and that perhaps we might not be even have needed to have this debate.
The subject of parking in London was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I do not think that we need any research to tell us what a disproportionate effect illegal parking and stopping in London have on the movement of traffic. We recognise the contribution of enforcement of effective parking controls to overcoming traffic congestion in London It is indeed one of the main elements of our approach to overcoming congestion.
Wheel clamping has proved a most effective deterrent against illegal parking in parts of central London since its introduction in 1982. There has been a 40 per cent. fall in illegal parking on yellow lines and a more than 30 per cent. fall in illegal parking in residents' bays.
We recognise that good park-and-ride facilties in outer London and on the edges of metropolitan areas can help to reduce congestion on radial routes. Car parks are provided at 538 of Network SouthEast's 922 stations and at 64 of London Underground stations.
Enforcement of parking controls is a matter for the police, but noble Lords may like to read the report of the Home Office Working Party on Parking Enforcement announced last week. Copies of which are in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that revenue support for London Regional Transport was being progressively reduced. We have a clear commitment to supporting the high level of investment needed to modernise and expand the capacity of the system. At over £400 million, LRT investment in 1989–90 will be over 70 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1984–85, the last year of the GLC. The Government grant is to rise by 43 per cent. in real terms in 1989–90 to help fund that level of investment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked for realistic low fares on public
458
transport, particularly British Rail. Fare levels are for British Rail to decide. It is British Rail which runs the railways and not Ministers. Since 1980 real fares have gone up by 5 per cent., but because of the increasing use of discounts such as Savers real fares paid per passenger mile have remained the same. Where BR is investing heavily to improve the quality of service we see nothing wrong in asking passengers to pay more to reflect the benefits they receive. A blanket subsidy to keep fares artificially low perpetuates inefficiency and insulates management from the customer. It cannot be justified.
In the context of the Central London Rail Study the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked who would pay for building those links. The new lines will be paid for by a mixture of fares paid by the growing number of passengers who have made them necessary, developers who should contribute in respect of the benefits they will gain, and grants for non-user benefits such as road congestion relief. It is too early at this stage to say what the fares and grants will be.
The right reverend Prelate also suggested that some of the South London railway lines should be converted to light rail. That is an interesting idea. It will be for British Rail to being forward proposals for investment in the first instance, but we suspect that conversion to light rail would be by no means as easy and trouble-free as might be thought. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be interested to know that the consultants working on the South London and South Circular assessment studies are looking at various options for improvements, including significant improvements to public transport, particularly train services. Therefore the possibility of increased railway frequencies is already being examined.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to company cars and tax advantages. The taxation of company cars is of course a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government's aim is to remove the element of subsidy. We have just commissioned a study of all forms of company assistance with travel in the London area. Our aim is to understand how much subsidy there is of all kinds.
The noble Earl also said that the planners did not think sufficiently far ahead when planning the M.25. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth also referred to that point. Forecasting has always been difficult. Successive governments have never been particularly accurate. The sheer scale of the M.25 and its proximity to London make such forecasting difficult. There were many uncertainties during the design stage. There was the oil crisis, doubts about the third London airport, abandonment of such schemes as Ringway 3, and objectors at public inquiries argued that the M.25 was not needed at all. It is not always as easy as all that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, gave a glowing commercial for West Midlands Travel bus company. I listened with interest to her remarks. Ministers have not yet taken a decision with regard to the break-up of the company. The West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority has put a full submission to the Government with its views.

459
Ministers are now considering that submission together with other representations which have been made.
The noble Baroness kindly asked me to pay a visit to the West Midlands. In fact I was there only last Friday. Among the places I visited was Birmingham Airport, which is part of my own area of responsibility. It is a most impressive regional airport, and a most successful one. It is going from strength to strength, thanks, to Government liberalisation policies among other things allowing new services to operate there.
Turning now to the White Paper on roads to which so many noble Lords referred, I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Lucas for their warm reception of the White Paper. I am also grateful for Lord Shrewsbury's good example of how savings could be made to individual companies as a result of road improvements.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked me to set out the spending plans over the next 10 years and to indicate what commitment I could give. My noble friend will know what my answer is likely to be. The Government are committed to taking the programme forward as a matter of urgency. The amount and timing of the additional expenditure will be for decision in the PES round in the usual way and will be published in the Public Expenditure White Paper in due course. An example of our commitment is the 60 per cent. increase in expenditure since 1979. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, would probably not be surprised if I say that, yes, of course we have to get the Treasury's agreement before we can spend any of that money.
With regard to forecasts for the year 2,000, details of national road traffic forecasts will be published in June. A number of noble Lords asked about the timescale. There will be a full roads report later in the year which will set out the complete road programme in detail, including existing schemes with supporting information.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about local roads expenditure. Most of the traffic is carried on the trunk network and that is why we have introduced the new White Paper. Local roads are the responsibility of local authorities. However, the Government provide continuing and increasing support through transport supplementary grant, which was increased by 7 per cent. this year. We shall not reduce TSG to pay for trunk roads.
How soon will the projects get under way? Work on the expanded programme will be started immediately. Consulting engineers will be appointed as soon as possible to work up, prepare and design the individual schemes using the extra £27 million granted from the reserve for that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in his opening remarks told us the horror story of his journey north last Friday. He will no doubt be pleased to see in the White Paper that both the M.1 and the A.5 are targeted for considerable improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said that the Government had considered various solutions to eliminate unacceptable levels of congestion on inter-urban roads but not that of moving people out
460
of London. I am sorry to see that he is no longer in the Chamber. As other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, have said, congestion is not confined to London and there is a need for major improvements on other parts of the motorway network.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned motorway widening in the context of the White Paper and aspects such as junction improvements and contraflows. My noble friend Lord Cross mentioned that point too. The widening schemes will usually include junction improvements and may also involve the provision of separate lanes linking junctions. In some cases, new off-line routes may be an alternative to carriageway widening. To avoid disruption, where possible the existing motorway format is modified to provide the other carriageway. I believe that it is called parallel widening. Obviously, we shall do our utmost to reduce the disruption where possible.
My noble friend Lord Cross said that all new roads should be built to dual carriageway standard. Many of the roads announced in the White Paper will be dual carriageway, but standards must relate to the projected traffic flows and other factors. My noble friend also asked whether officials in the Department of Transport ever left their offices in London and travelled. Of course they do. The department has nine regional offices all over the country which are responsible for roads in their own regions.
My noble friend also referred to the Heathrow rail link and the subject of the green belt. He may not be aware that the Bill was before the House and that the Select Committee has given its view and adjourned. The promoters will now have to consider whether changes can be made that will enable the Bill to go ahead. The delays are of course disappointing, but the committee clearly felt that there should be changes. That is of course a matter for the Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, asked for a more integrated transport policy. When my right honourable friend made the statement on transport in London, he said that the Government must continue to have an important role in overseeing transport plans. But the primary objective of transport policy must be to utilise and expand the resources employed in transport in the most efficient way so that resources are allocated to the services that people most want and are willing to pay for. Increased efficiency is achieved by fair competition between transport modes and by people choosing which modes to use to travel or to move their goods on the basis of prices which, for all modes, reflect as far as is reasonably practical the costs that they impose by their choice. I remind the noble Baroness of the figures that I gave in my opening remarks for increased railway investment which is at a record level; indeed, the highest level since the 1960s. I shall have to write to my noble friend Lord Teviot on the subject of concessionary fares, VAT and fuel duty rebate.
Time is running out. I said earlier that I doubted that I would be able to cover every single point. However, in conclusion, I should like to stress that the Government are pursuing a wide range of

461
measures to meet the country's transport needs and are tackling the problems in London within a coherent framework. Record sums are being invested in transport infrastructure. Further programmes and studies are in hand. The private sector is contributing significantly and opportunities for further innovation are being pursued. We are confident of continuing to make progress with modern transport systems which will take us into the next century and help us to meet the new challenges safely, efficiently and with improvements to the environment. The system will help to sustain the present economic progress and improve living standards for us all.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am satisfied that our four-and-a-half-hour debate has served the purpose for which it was intended. Some noble Lords have dealt with the national problems; others have dealt with the serious problems in London; and yet other noble Lords have dealt with problems in other parts of the country. We are grateful to the Minister for the number of replies that he has given to various points, although I am certain that many noble Lords would like to reopen the debate having heard some of the statements he made. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. More people have spoken in this transport debate than have spoken on many other occasions, and that is to our satisfaction. I hope that Ministers will take heed of the important points that have been made by noble Lords dealing with all kinds of matters relating to the important subject of transport. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Merger Control: ECC Report
7.25 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton Lord Oliver of Aylmerton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Merger Control (6th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 31).
The noble and learned Lord said: In introducing the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should perhaps say a brief word about the background to the report to which it relates. Mergers nowadays are never very far from the headlines of the financial press. While the subject may not appear at first sight to be one of riveting interest outside the City of London, it is nevertheless one of immense significance to our national industrial future and to the competitive position of industry in the European Community. In recent years, the provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome have ensured that, even in the case of purely domestic mergers, the European Commission has felt impelled to take an active interest, and, on occasions, to intervene, even in cases where the terms of merger have been approved by our own Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
There is, I think, a general concern that critical decisions in relation to United Kingdom industry
462
may be made elsewhere. The Commission's intervention in the British Airways-British Caledonian merger and the involvement of the courts of the United States in the Minorco and Consolidated Gold Fields case are cases in point. On the other hand, of course, industrial rationalisation is not a purely domestic phenomenon. Some, but not all, of the member states of the Community have their own national organs for control of mergers and combinations. The development of the Community and the approach of 1992 have rendered inevitable the establishment of some single legal framework within the Community for the scrutiny and control of cross-border mergers on a supra-national basis. It is against that background that there has been proposed the regulation of the Council of the European Communities which forms the subject matter of the Select Committee's report which it is my duty to introduce to noble Lords.
The body of evidence on which the report is based was substantial. The task of the sub-committee was not rendered any easier by the fact that we were, throughout, to some extent shooting at a moving target because revised versions of the regulation emerged—as, I believe, they are still emerging—from Brussels while our deliberations were in progress. That is not a complaint; some of the revisions helpfully met criticisms that were already being formulated in the evidence before us.
Ever since the early 1970s, there has been a growing awareness of the need for a comprehensive policy for mergers having a Community dimension. But it was not until 1987, when it became evident after the decision of the European Court in the Philip Morris case that the Commission was not only able but willing to use its powers under Articles 85 and 86 to exercise a measure of control, that the disagreements that had previously hampered progress evaporated. The evidence that we have received indicates that, at least in business circles, the Commission's proposals are now widely regarded, in principle, as an acceptable and, indeed, a welcome development. I believe that the Institute of Directors was the only body that expressed unqualified opposition.
In introducing the report to noble Lords, I think that the most helpful thing I can do is to summarise in the broadest outline the proposals as they currently stand and then to identify the areas to which the committee's deliberations were directed as giving rise to concern.
The regulation as proposed applies to all concentrations having a Community dimension. Mergers within the scope of the regulation are to be notified to the Commission before they take effect and provision was originally made in the regulation for an automatic suspension pending a decision as to their compatibility with the Common Market. That has now been dropped from the latest version since the report was published and I think that it is probably a welcome development. The regulation provides a defined criterion for Community dimension which has altered somewhat with successive drafts. It contains in Article 2 an important provision for sanctioning mergers which

463
are prima facie incompatible on competitive grounds in cases where,
"the contribution of the merger to improving production or distribution, promoting technical or economic progress, or improving the competitive structure within the Market outweighs damage to competition".
The regulation provides for time limits, which appeared to the committee to be satisfactory if they can be adhered to, for the consideration of projected mergers and there are extensive powers in the Commission to request information and to carry out investigations. Substantial fines are provided for supplying incorrect information and for implementing mergers in breach of the regulation. There is an important provision that the Commission shall have sole competence in relation to mergers within the scope of the regulation and, subject to exceptions which are not at the moment clearly or satisfactorily defined, that such mergers are effectively excluded from national merger control.
The sub-committee concluded that it is a logical consequence of the establishment of the internal market that there should be some transfer to the Community of the power to block large-scale mergers, but it should not be too extensive too soon; and before the regulation is adopted we felt that its implications must be very carefully considered. It will obviously be both impracticable and undesirable that all mergers with any cross-border implications should be committed to Community control, and the initial question that has to be tackled is the criterion by which Community jurisdiction is to be defined.
As the regulation was drawn at the time of the report, a merger in which each of the undertakings concerned achieved more than three-quarters of its aggregate Community-wide turnover within one and the same member state was excluded from Community control. Subject to that, however, a merger had a Community dimension and was the subject of Community control if two conditions were satisfied. First, the aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings involved must be more than 1 billion ecus—that is £670 million; secondly, the aggregate Community-wide turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings had to be more than 100 million ecus—that is about £67 million.
I believe it was the universal view of the witnesses that the only viable yardstick was turnover rather than market share, which is what had originally been suggested as the criterion. But the majority felt that the levels proposed were too low—some felt that they were far too low—and that the result would be to bring mergers within the Community net on a scale which it was beyond the likely resources of the Community to handle. I think that it is this rather than considerations of competition policy which governs the threshold. It was our view that, at any rate as a starting figure, an appropriate threshold would be 5 billion ecus (about £3.25 billion) but that the regulation should contain a mechanism for raising or lowering the threshold, without the necessity on each occasion of unanimity in the Council. This would accommodate inflation and the
464
increasing ability of the Commission to handle a larger volume of work.
Such a threshold would, we felt, exclude about 35 per cent. of Community industry and should be within the handling potential of the foreseeable Community machinery. The establishment of efficient machinery and the recruitment of properly qualified staff of the right calibre are of course crucial and must be a condition precedent to any transfer of competence to the Community. That was stressed by a number of witnesses with experience of the working of the Commission, as was the need for procedural improvements in relation particularly to hearing and to the publication of proceedings to the parties and their advisers.
Since the publication of the report I understand that there have been further negotiations in the Council, as a result of which the threshold of worldwide turnover has now been raised to the figure suggested in the report (5 billion ecus), that figure to be reviewable in 1992. A merger is also to be outside Community competence if each of the undertakings concerned achieves 66 per cent. (instead of 75 per cent.) of its turnover within the same member state.
Perhaps the most controversial areas of the proposed regulation are, first, the criteria for appraisal for compatibility with the Common Market and, secondly, the question of how far any room should be left for the operation of national control agencies in cases within Community competence.
With regard to the first question, the predominant view was that the original version, which referred to,
"damaging effective competition by the strengthening or creation of a dominant position in the Common Market"—
a phrase which is the subject matter of an existing jurisprudence in the European Court—was much to be preferred to the existing wording, which refers to the creation or strengthening of,
"a position as a result of which maintenance or development of effective competition is impeded".
That may not sound a great deal different but it leaves a considerable latitude for debate in an area in which I think certainty is important. It was the committee's view that the original version should if possible be restored. I understand that the committee's preference for the original wording is in fact shared by a number of member states. It is also the committee's view that the appropriate body to exercise Community merger control is the Commission, not some specially created body and certainly not the Council.
More controversial is the question of whether, in appraising a merger within its competence, the Commission should be governed by competition considerations alone, whether it should be entitled to authorise even anti-competitive mergers if there are countervailing advantages (as is at present provided by Article 2, to which I have referred) and whether it should be either bound or entitled to take into account social and purely regional considerations, such as the effects of the proposed merger on, for instance, local employment.
There was strong support from some witnesses for the view that competition should be the sole criterion. It was a matter which caused a good deal of heart searching in the committee. We finally felt bound to accept the limited criterion for authorisation proposed in Article 2 as at present drawn but to accept also that the criterion should not be expanded to include domestic and local social considerations. This is a matter upon which noble Lords may hold widely differing views but the committee felt in the end compelled to adopt the view that to open the door to considerations other than those of a Community nature would be to subject the Commission to national, social and political pressures which might very well imperil the integrity of its operation and with which it is in any event ill equipped to deal. There are moreover other provisions of the treaty with social objectives.
Finally, as to the position of national control agencies, all the evidence which the committee received from industry favoured the notion of a one-stop procedure—and I think that is very important. To allow the continuance of control to the agencies of the individual member states to which the merging organisations belong would, I think, cause endless delay, would be self-defeating and would largely nullify the purpose of a single Community control. A merger, once sanctioned by the Commission, ought thereafter to be free from national control. The present draft regulation, however, contains two somewhat obscure provisions reserving power to the national competition authorities, first, where the Commission empowers them to act in order to prevent competition in local markets—Article 8(2)—and, secondly, where it is necessary to promote legitimate interests other than those pursued by the regulation,
"provided that such interests are sufficiently defined and protected in domestic law and are compatible with the Common Market".
That is Article 20(3).
One cannot help feeling that this part of the regulation must have been drafted after a visit to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. It is the committee's view that this must be spelled out with a good deal more precision than it is at the moment before the regulation is in an acceptable form. Defence, national security, financial services and the news media come to mind as obvious candidates for legitimate interests; but this clearly should be defined with greater precision. We were also unhappy with the vagueness of the limits upon the power of the Commission to delegate powers of decision in order to protect competition in local markets, and the possible effect of what seemed to be a derogation from the one-stop shop principle.
Subject, however, to the points of criticism raised in the report, the committee generally welcomed the proposal as a logical, practical and sensible step towards 1992. We feel that the Government have been right not to be rushed and are to be congratulated on the progress made so far. An early agreement in the Council would, however, now be very welcome since the formulation of advice to those who are contemplating merger is made very difficult by the continuing uncertainty as to the
466
ultimate form that the regulation will take. There are, however, still matters upon which we should like to see further progress, in particular the points to which I have drawn attention where further definition is required together with further safeguards in relation to fair hearings and procedure. Those are referred to in paragraph 75 of the report. It is a very important matter because in the ultimate analysis the confidence of practitioners will be essential to the proper working of the system.
In conclusion, I should like to express my personal gratitude—in which I am encouraged to hope that noble Lords may feel it right to concur—to the members of Sub-Committee E, to the witnesses who so helpfully gave evidence, both oral and written, and in particular to our specialist adviser, Mr. Stephen Richards, who took immense trouble in guiding our footsteps throughout. I hope very much that our deliberations will have made a constructive contribution to progress on the regulation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Merger Control (6th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 31).—(Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord and his committee for their hard work and for giving us the opportunity of adjusting our minds to a subject that, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, is never far from the headlines. Although that is true, what do we find when we look past the headlines in the financial columns? Rarely do we find serious discussion about the effects of mergers or takeovers on outputs, exports, investment or employment. Too often we find financial gossip about the escalation of bids, the expectation of higher dividends, short-term financial gains, or which predator is getting the fattest.
Concentrations between undertakings—which is the title of the proposal, for which merger is a shorthand—are indeed increasing in Europe, and they should be if we are to meet and to match with Europe, and if we are to compete with the industrial superpowers of the US, Japan and, increasingly, of the Pacific Rim. The report might with advantage have devoted a little more space to examining and documenting what is happening on the industrial front and in particular on the manufacturing industrial front and what is in prospect for Europe. It might also profitably have spent a little more time on examining the industrial and commercial imperatives of concentration. The report, like the draft council regulation, is almost wholly pre-occupied with "distortion of competition". The bulk of the witnesses, even—surprisingly to me—those from the Confederation of British Industry, based their evidence on the fashionable view that uninhibited competition is the panacea for all our industrial illness. Tell that to the Japanese, my Lords.
Sub-Committee A is at the present time examining the relationships between Japan and Europe and in the fullness of time will be bringing a report, no

467
doubt to your Lordships' House, that will have more to say about that particular subject.
In 1984, Mr. Tebbit, who was then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, directed that merger references would be made primarily—indeed almost exclusively—on competition grounds. The 1988 Blue Paper—which is summarised in paragraph 17(vi) of the British report had this to say:
"The MMC are not"—
and the word "not" is italicised—
"asked to consider whether the merger would be positively in the public interest".
It is excluded from the consideration which is to be given to this critical subject. The Blue Paper—the policy of HMG—and to a large extent the commission's proposal and report are in my view unduly pre-occupied with competition when they should be mainly concerned with competitiveness. The two are not the same. Sometimes competition is the best way to increase and improve competitiveness, but not always. Sometimes the elimination of competition is the best way to improve competitiveness when competition leads to duplication and wastes resources.
The commissioner, Mr. Peter Sutherland, appeared to be edging his way towards a recognition of this in his answer to question 120. He appeared to go rather further than Article 2(3) to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, has referred and from which I should like to quote. It states:
"Concentrations which create or strengthen a position as a result of which the maintenance or development of effective competition is impeded in the Common Market or a substantial part thereof shall be declared incompatible with the Common Market unless authorised on the ground that their contribution to improving production and distribution, to promoting technical or economic progress or to improving the competitive structure within the Common Market outweighs the damage to competition".
That recognition is at least a small mercy. But it is, I submit, putting the cart before the horse. We need measures to increase competitiveness. If those measures unduly affect the interest of consumers, by all means let us consider that problem and deal with it.
It is heresy these days—and it is perhaps becoming a heresy even on our own Benches—to question whether a consumer is or ought to be king in all circumstances. There are occasions when a consumer takes far too short a view. There are occasions when the interests of groups of producers should outweigh those of consumers. My fear is that the Commission's proposal will make it more difficult for companies in Europe to get together nationally or across borders to compete in the 1990s. As I have said, the proposal largely chimes with British practice, but what has our policy produced? The answer to that can be found in the Blue Paper published in 1988 by the Department of Trade and Industry. I quote paragraph 2.10:
"The bulk of the evidence (summarised in Annex E) is that the commercial performance of enterprises post-merger has, more often than not, failed to live up to the claims of the acquiring firm at the time of merger".
That is documented in Annex E of that Blue Paper which contains nine empirical studies all of which,
468
without exception, demonstrated that mergers have not on balance led to efficiency gains. It is not surprising that they should not have done so because by definition the policy on mergers that has been pursued in this country has been biased against mergers which, by concentrating output, would have maximised reductions in unit costs and optimised our competitiveness.
In short, merger mania has not sharpened UK competitiveness. What it has produced is major job losses and the distraction of top management from producing and selling. Far too many chairmen and top managers of companies have had to spend far too much time looking over their shoulders and waiting for predators, calling for daily print-outs of shareholders to see what is or may be happening to that company. Far too much time has been spent by senior management arranging the affairs of their companies so that their own positions will be protected as well as possible in case of a hostile successful takeover. Nor is there any reason to believe that this situation will improve.
Professor Hamel of the London Business School, quoted in Fortune in December 1988, said:
"Making acquisitions is the easy part. The fundamental management challenge for European companies is to learn how to integrate their national operations into an effective whole".
Professor Hamel's forecast is that this process will take longer and lead to far more corporate divorces after 1992 than most managers expect. The shape of that future is becoming clearer all the time.
I have referred to the challenge of the super competitors, notably from the Far East, and the Pacific Rim. There is a need for a co-ordinated European response, hinted at by Commissioner Sutherland in evidence and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, MEP. I quote briefly from what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said in evidence, as it sums up much of what I believe we should be putting our minds to. She said in reply to Question 355:
"I… refer… to… The Times 1000 Top Companies, you will see that all the major companies are, in fact, American or Japanese and it is because they have had a merger control at their level which is for 230 million or 110 million instead of national merger regulations that have stopped companies growing to a size at which they can operate on a global basis … you are pre-empting possibly the opportunity for companies to grow and become relatively competitive with companies from these other major parts of the world which are at the moment dominant in world trade and commerce".
Hints are not enough. This attitude should be spelt out clearly in the draft regulations. Competition is one means, but only one among many, of securing the ends of growth and the improvement of living standards which are recognised in paragraph 4 of the preamble to the proposals. The excessively single-minded pursuit of the will-o'-the-wisp of competition has not served the public interest. There is a proper public interest in the proposals for mergers; an interest in maximising output and employment; an interest in long-term profitability, as against short-term speculative gains; an interest in investment, as opposed to asset stripping; and an interest in enhanced competitiveness with imports and in foreign markets. Those are the questions which ought to be posed to the predators. Those are the tests which should be applied to the proposals.

469
However, above all there is the question whether market share will be enhanced because that of all the tests is the single test which the Japanese have applied with enormous effectiveness winning market share for selected commodities and now for services.
In conclusion, United Kingdom and European firms increasingly find it necessary to plan operations and to compete on a global basis. This means that mergers based on the long-term industrial needs of Europe, not on short-term financial greed, are what are necessary and it underlines yet again the imperative need to develop a proper European industrial policy.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, many noble Lords will wish me to congratulate the chairman on the production of a unanimous report on matters of such complexity and enormous importance, while shooting, as he said, at a moving target all along the line. I should also like to congratulate him on his brilliant and comprehensive presentation and the skilful way in which he referred to the problems but did not mention many of them in passing.
I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, will not mind if I address myself in my speech to some suggestions as to how this excellent report among others could be used for the benefit of UK industry or industry generally in the Community. I hope he will forgive me, as I was not a member of the committee, if in construing the evidence I fall into any serious error.
Many companies inside and outside the Community must be considering now how far it is better from an economic point of view to merge or not to merge. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, has said, so much of the literature and much of the evidence presented to the Select Committee was not concerned, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, with the industrial and commercial imperatives so essential for industry. I am not proposing to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray, along the line that he has taken, with much of which I agree.
The report will clearly be very useful as an up-to-date evaluation of the scope of the subject in an EC context. At least six instruments have been issued since July 1973, several of which are curiously dubbed as "final", apart from a plethora of reports on competition policy, including at least 14 issued by the EC. I feel like saying that enough is enough and asking the question: what action is being taken to help industrialists with this present mass of material?
The report of this Select Committee is well timed. It comes after the massive decision of the European Court in the Philip Morris case referred to on page 6. It deals with the scope of Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty. There is also the UK Companies Bill, which may soon return to your Lordships' House. Parts of it may still be relevant to merger and takeover matters. When the Bill was before your Lordships some time ago there was a discussion about the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers and its code of practice.
470
Perhaps in reply the noble and learned Lord will wish to deal with my next point. There does not appear to be any mention of the activities of that successful takeover panel in the section of the Select Committee's report entitled "Current Position in United Kingdom Law" which appears on pages 7 and 8. Perhaps the reason is that the Select Committee was limiting itself to legislation. However, I have noted the interesting paper headed "Appendix" and entitled Explanation of and matters arising in connection with the City Code on Take-overs and Mergers, on pages 53 to 55. I understand that no useful comments have been made about the activities of that merger.
I strongly support the Select Committee's view on two main issues. The first is the necessity to achieve greater certainty in the field of mergers. That aspect was emphasised inter alia by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her evidence. I should like to pay a warm tribute to her splendid work as chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. It is now internationally recognised.
The second view which I support is that expressed in paragraph 89 of the Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations on page 36. It states:
"It is a logical consequence of the establishment of the internal market that there should be some transfer to the Community of a power to block large-scale mergers".
I believe that everyone will agree with that statement. It continues:
"But before a Regulation is adopted, all implications should be carefully considered".
The committee then asks rhetorical questions as to the central issues.
I have great sympathy with the reservations expressed by the Department of Trade and Industry on page 78 of its memorandum dated October 1988, and orally by their witnesses through Mr. Threadgold, the head of the competitive policy division. On 17th January 1989, he told the Select Committee, as appears on page 78 of the report:
"So the question at issue, therefore, is not whether there should be control of mergers at the Community level but the nature and extent of that control, whether a regulation can provide a more efficient and effective mechanism for such control than the provisions of Articles 85 and 86, and what the balance would be between the Community and national controls. The Government maintains a general reservation, because it is not yet convinced that a regulation would be an improvement upon the present position. Many important questions remain unresolved, and the Government is not prepared to take a decision for or against the principle of a regulation until the shape of the proposal is much clearer".
At the bottom of page 78 Mr. Threadgold states:
"Any measure which reduced the scope for legislative control at the national level would, the Government believes, throw into sharper relief the non-legislative barriers. This would disadvantage countries such as the United Kingdom which is relatively open in this respect".
From an industrial point of view it; seems that all those matters are like Mohammed's tomb; suspended in mid-air.
I shall not raise any questions regarding the regional issues. However, I mention the questions and answers arising out of the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in question 224 at page 61, and also questions 247 and 248 involving the noble and learned chairman.

471
I wish to raise and adopt a practical and pragmatic approach to the problems outlined by the noble and learned Lord in the report. So many industrialists are spending a great deal of time trying to solve them. At paragraph 88 of the report the Select Committee suggest that block exemptions and other measures to reduce any practical problems should await the development of further case law. I should like to see attention being paid to block exemptions even at this stage. It is my view, with respect, that to maintain the position set out in the report would unnecessarily prolong the uncertainty which UK industrialists may find exists in this field.
From my reading of the report and the evidence, and in view of my contacts with helpful and knowledgeable members of DGIV and DGIII and the Law Directorate of the EC on and off for 25 years, I believe that the question which must be answered is: what should be done in the interest of industry whether in the UK or on the Continent? There is available a line of legal experience and case law. It comes from the Continental Can case in 1973; the Hoffman La-Roche case in 1979; the Pilkington case in 1980; and the Philip Morris case in 1987. They are quite apart from the number of useful decisions made in a number of French, German and United Kingdom cases, including the BA/BCAL case, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, and the Rover case. I was greatly impressed by the analysis of the directive made by the joint working party on competition law found on pages 48 to 52 of the report.
I presume to refer to some of my recent and helpful personal experiences on mergers in the EC context in Brussels. I was invited to attend the colloquium on merger control in the EC held on 11th March 1988. It was organised by seven law firms which had their offices at the happy sounding address of 1 Avenue de La Joyeuse Entrée? I have the transcript of the colloquium in my hand. It was presided over by my old friend, the honourable Sir Gordon Slynn, then Advocate General of the European Court of Justice and now a distinguished member of that court. He made a number of contributions to the ideas on merger control which were of practical value. Somehow or another they appear to have escaped the notice of the Select Committee.
We were presented with a magnificent book containing several hundred pages. I found it most useful because it contains an analysis of the competition and mergers law in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, West Germany and Denmark. I certainly recommend the book to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as bedside reading. The UK contribution to that book was by Mr. Michael Reynolds of Allen and Overy, the well-known London solicitors. I hope that this is not out of order and I hope too that I shall not be derided on my views about what should be done in an EC context as I was, as I shall explain later, over 25 years ago.
I suggest that now is the time for the Government, the Law Society or some academic institution or even the working party which gave evidence to the Select Committee to set up a small working group
472
of lawyers with experience of discussions on issues about DGIV particularly and the EC legal departments. That group should draft a memorandum on merger control specifically based on the present directive for discussion with DGIV. I believe from my associations with DGIV that the members of it would welcome such action.
Before I am told that there are procedural difficulties about taking a practical course of that kind, perhaps I may say that in the field of research and development of intellectual property competition law that procedure was adopted with considerable success in the early 1960s. The United Kingdom was not then a member of the EC and a number of people said that we should not join it. As head of my chambers, I was receiving requests to advise UK firms on the effect of the Treaty of Rome on their Continental business. I was then involved with two excellent juniors in preparing a chapter on trademarks and designs for the third edition of Halsbury's Laws of England and I was also involved in some very heavy international questions relating to trademarks. If possible I wanted some sort of relief from that activity and therefore I became involved with the Treaty of Rome in some detail.
I eventually found myself addressing a conference on harmonization of European laws on intellectual property and mergers and competition law at the George Washington University in Washington DC. At the conference I even recommended that there should be a single European Act to deal with those matters. I still have the report showing that I made such a statement. When it became known in London circles, I was derided by many senior members of the patent Bar for having made such an outrageous suggestion.
However, three of us, a distinguished German lawyer Dr. Röttger, a United States lawyer called Mr. Ladas and myself, being influenced by the attitudes of industrialists in this sphere, presumed to prepare a draft of a European trademark instrument in the framework of the Rome treaty for discussion with EC officials. We were welcomed with open arms. Most of the work was done by the German lawyer in discussions in Brussels and he earned for himself the title of Father of European Trademark Law.
More recently, after the publication of the Green Paper on innovation and intellectual property, to which the Prime Minister wrote the foreword, I had many helpful negotiations in proposals for the benefit of the United Kingdom spare parts industry. Many of those ideas produced in Brussels found their way into the Copyright, Patents and Designs Act 1988.
I have kept in touch with EC laws on competition and merger, particularly Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, for nearly three decades. I have even served for some months on an EC working party on Articles 85 and 86. However, my approach to those matters has been purely pragmatic. Perhaps I may ask rhetorically: how can the Select Committee and all the matters to which I have referred in general terms be used for the benefit of industry in the UK or the EC?

473
As I said, DGIV and other DGs in the EC would welcome a positive approach being made from lawyers in this country on an informal basis to try to help British industry more, if I may say so, than they will be helped by the contents of this report of the Select Committee.Those kinds of tactics have been used often before. There is a plethora of directives, case law and advice available. Should we now not make use of this excellent report in some practical way rather than letting it wither away on some departmental shelves?
8.25 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I was concerned about taking part in this debate at all, but following the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is always a joy. I was delighted that he offered me an addition to my bedside reading. Having heard his fascinating and interesting speech, I now have so much interesting and useful information that I do not believe that I need read the book which he highly recommended.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I will lend it to you.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for chairing this committee and for all the hard work it has done. It has been my experience in the few years for which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House that the more difficult and complex the subject being considered, the clearer and better is the report which is published as a result of those considerations and discussions. I must say that I find this report extremely interesting.
It was a nice irony for me to read—many other noble Lords on the committee will know about this—that the United Kingdom, as the Department of Trade and Industry calls itself in a rather "twee" way, has reserved its position on the principle of an EC merger control regulation. It would be nice to know what will happen to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, whose only conclusion was that the committee reserved its position. It recommended that this very important subject should be discussed in the House of Lords. Oddly enough, I strongly welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government—it is not the Department of Trade and Industry but Her Majesty's Government—reserved their position because those matters are of far wider import than the rather arcane subject of mergers might suggest.
I do not believe that I am being too apocalyptic if I suggest that kings no longer surround themselves with men-at-arms and governments do not send vast armies to war in order to gain economic advantage over their neighbours or to protect a perceived economic advantage. Those kinds of battles for supremacy take place in the boardrooms of the multinational companies of the world. Those kinds of battles have an enormous effect on the social life and indeed the wealth of the individual nations. That is why this is such a critically important subject.
Different countries take different attitudes to these matters. This has been of enormous impact on
474
political decisions. That is why I welcome some of the evidence which was strongly opposed to the Commission's suggestion, which oddly enough was accepted by the committee, that the Commission should be able to authorise potentially anti-competitive mergers on the industrial policy criteria proposed.
With respect, I believe that that is a very dangerous position because that is asking the Commission—and I stress that—to take what are fundamentally very important decisions on matters of industrial strategy. I do not think it right for the Commission to look at that; it should be considered at a high political level. Notwithstanding that, I happily endorse the conclusions of the committee.
There are two other matters that I would like to raise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, spoke on the critically important question of timing. It is important that the timetable for takeovers contained in, for example, our own City code should be able to accommodate the prenotification prodecure laid down by the regulation. It is a procedure which of course I welcome. This generally happens as regards the domestic procedures via the Office of Fair Trading and in relation to the decisions that the Secretary of State has to take. My noble friend will no doubt recall the Irish Distillers and Plessey cases in 1988 which confirmed the need for co-ordination between domestic and European requirements.
I should like also to stress the need for a clear filter mechanism, again analogous to the OFT procedures, which lead to the Secretary of State announcing a decision on a merger. While it can be said that the original European timetable has been improved since the original proposals, there is as yet no certainty that the Commission will, or could, adhere to the timetables. For example, Article 6(3) on the initiation of proceedings states:
"decisions pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be taken within a period not exceeding one month, unless the undertakings concerned agree to extend that period".
If, following the initiation of proceedings, a proposed concentration is to be cleared without further reference such a decision is to be made within a further one month as stated by Article 9(1), with the identical caveat for extensions. One assumes that this ability to extend is only with the agreement of all parties, although that is not clear; in which case agreement is unlikely to be forthcoming in a unilateral offer.
However, the concern about unilateral offers can be taken one stage further since it is understood—at least, it is my understanding—that decisions of the European Commission could be appealed to the European Court of Justice. Obviously, a case has to be made but it presumably can be made by any party who disagrees with the Commission's finding. As we all know, the position is different from that which operates at present in the United Kingdom, where decisions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may be subject to juducial review and the only matter which can be considered is whether the decision of the MMC was arrived at correctly. My concern of course is that the scope for frustrating a hostile bid could be widened under this regulation.

475
My other concern is in regard to scope. It is worth recalling that in the domestic experience only a very small percentage of relevant bids is actually referred. I believe the figure is approximately 3 per cent. The financial criteria of the 1,000 million ecus and the 100 million ecus were clearly explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, so I shall not go through that again. However, I believe that the case for making the criteria larger is a strong one. The criteria seem to be low, and I suggest that, for example, any Community acquisition of over 100 million ecus by a substantial and geographically well-spread corporate entity—for example, ICI—may well be caught. It is not immediately apparent that the Commission intended the drafting to have this effect and it may well be subject to amendment. Further, the financial parameters are also likely to be the subject of much discussion and, I repeat, they most probably will be.
There is another matter that concerns me regarding scope. The December draft of the regulation stated in Article 2(2):
"concentrations which do not create or strengthen a position as a result of which the maintenance or development of effective competition would be impeded in the common market or in a substantial part thereof shall be declared compatible with the common market".
The converse is stated in Article 2(3). While there has not been a more up-to-date public document on the regulation, my understanding is that the wording of these two articles is likely to be subject to revision—I hope that it is—which may introduce an element of clarity and substance into the question of what is or is not an impediment in the market. If, however, this wording has the effect of restricting the number of cases which come within the scope, then in a sense I welcome it.
I come to my final point, having spoken for far too long, for which I apologise. This refers to the one-stop considerations. I believe it is extremely important that if these regulations are adopted the position is made extremely clear not only for those making offers but also for those receiving offers and not least for national regulators within all the countries of the European market.
8.26 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, not only for his fine introduction to this evening's debate but, even more so, for the clear and incisive report which the sub-committee under his chairmanship produced.
The complexity of this subject is really no less for practitioners in this area, whether as industrialists, lawyers or bankers, than it is for laymen, and the report is a model of clarity and logic. Your Lordships may remember that I am a practitioner of sorts, so I have a professional interest to declare; though my remarks are intended to be as far as possible from a political standpoint rather from that of a banker.
The committee opens its opinions, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, noted, by saying that it,
"accepts that it is a logical consequence of the establishment of the internal market that there should be some transfer of
476
competence from Member States to the Community of the power to block large scale mergers".
The debate on 1992 earlier this month demonstrated that your Lordships generally accept the importance and the inevitability of the single European—or internal—market and the logical consequences of that. For a more fundamental appraisal of the relationship between Britain and the Community I should like, if a little bare-faced advertising is allowed, to encourage your Lordships to speak in the debate which I hope to have the privilege of introducing in two weeks' time. Therefore, I shall adopt the same attitude as other noble Lords tonight to the opening opinion of your Lordships' committee and address myself briefly to the central question arising from that: how much transfer of competence and over what timescale?
While it might be argued that the criteria for distinguishing between mergers over which the Commission is to have jurisdiction and those which would escape Community consideration is the most important issue, I believe that these criteria become less of a critical question if the relationship between the Community and national authorities on all transactions is satisfactorily defined. In comparison, issues such as the suitability of the Commission itself rather than a new purpose-built body in the image of the United Kingdom's MMC as the appraiser, the staffing implications of the Commission, and so on, seem secondary but not unimportant details. The committee suggested that all the main questions were interlocked, but I do not believe that we cannot nonetheless grade them in importance.
The committee stated that it was,
"impressed by the almost unanimous support from industry and their legal advisers for single control at Community level of mergers".
I think that experience has shown that companies have not inevitably been consistent in their advocacy even of national merger policy, particularly as predator turns to potential victim, or, as I am sure a sober banker should express it, offeror turns to offeree. I therefore have to say that I am less impressed by this unanimity at this stage than was the committee, and suspect that after the first British company succumbs to a contested takeover, approved by the Commission with the UK authorities having no power to rule independently, the unanimity may prove to be very fragile.
Companies and their advisers have learnt the ropes in the UK and I have no doubts that a company losing its independence, with the Commission's approval only, will be convinced, rightly or wrongly, that it could have won its cause with the OFT and the MMC in this country. But until that actually occurs, of course it is natural for industry and its advisers to prefer the prospect of one-stop shopping for merger control. Incidentally, that inelegant phrase "one-stop shopping" was very prevalent two or three years ago in the world of financial conglomerates or, to pursue the analogy, financial supermarkets. The intervening years have perhaps taken some of the gloss off such groups and the concept of one-stop shopping and I suspect that, in the area of merger control as well, the attributes of one-stop shopping will not necessarily include

477
quality, speed or cost-effectiveness, compared to the service provided by a sensibly co-ordinated combination of European and national regulation for even the largest mergers, at least for a significant transitional period.
I say this even though I am more in sympathy with the approach of the Commission generally to merger control than I am with that of the Government. I believe, as I have argued to your Lordships previously, that the definition of the public or national interest should be less exclusively based on competition and more broadly based in all sectors of industry and commerce and not just areas such as defence, financial services and other specific cases. Even in the case of banking your Lordships will remember that the Government, during the passage in this House of the Banking Act 1987, chose not to take specific powers to intervene in takeovers of banks on the grounds of national interest but instead only to rely on the existing broad general powers even if these are very infrequently utilised in merger control as practised by this Government.
It is not clear of course to what extent the influence of this Government or any of the other 11 will in the event direct the Commission's criterion away from a broader approach including social and regional considerations, to a predominantly competition-based one. I therefore welcome the committee's recommendation that the limited powers under Article 2 be adopted to allow the Commission to approve a merger deemed to be anti-competitive for reasons of broader industrial policy. I believe however that it is correspondingly more questionable to rule out any consideration of social, regional or employment factors.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, argued that to impose this burden on the Commission risked, as I understood it, a breakdown of its efficient working and represented a mandate outside its competence. But if mergers of companies above the threshold of 5 billion ecus, or whatever subsequent figure is adopted, are to be removed from the jurisdiction of national authorities, while the Commission's brief excludes criteria such as social and regional factors, then we have the absurd position of the largest mergers in this country being subject to narrower definitions of public interest than smaller ones.
I believe that the fine principle of belt and braces should apply to merger control for all companies over which it is agreed that the European Commission should have some jurisdiction for a period of several years after implementation of the proposals. Whatever extra costs or longer delay (which I do not believe are inevitable) are caused by two-stop shopping, I believe that they are worth bearing to try to ensure that the public interest is truly represented as well as possible, while the efficacy of the Commission's appraisal and adjudication can be monitored.
If the criteria which are agreed for the Commission are relatively narrow and competition-based, I am more doubtful that we can, with any degree of comfort, cede national control over any mergers in the foreseeable future. But if, as I hope, the
478
Commission is given the broader mandate which it has sought, I would be cautiously optimistic that, after a period of the national and Community authorities working in tandem, exclusive authority in respect of most industries could ultimately be granted to the Commission.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, argued so well today—as did many others of your Lordships in the 1992 debate—we are entering such a critical period for the next stage of British industry's reshaping, that I do not believe that we can safely or responsibly abdicate national merger control at any level of size, least of all for the largest and inevitably most economically critical transactions, until the Community's machine has been extensively tested and proved sound. Yes, the long-term aim should be for increasingly exclusive authority for the Commission, but let us not risk the safety of all the passengers in the UK's economic aeroplane by letting the European pilot go solo too early.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, not only for the way in which he introduced the report this evening, but also for both his excellent chairmanship of the sub-committee of which I had the honour to be a member and his infinite patience with witnesses and members of the sub-committee alike. For someone who has sat on one of his sub-committees it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that even the most ardent and laissez-faire European sitting on such a sub-committee would be worried about what will be the consequences of certain regulations unless some changes are made to them or some further interpretation is firmed up over and above what exists at the moment.
With a great deal of trepidation, which was greatly increased when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I decided to intervene in this debate on one specific point; namely, the question of criteria for the authorisation of a merger. The argument that non-competition criteria should be taken into account by the commission when ruling on a merger under the terms of the Council Regulation was, unfortunately, rejected by the committee. It approved of the limited power under Article 2 to authorise a merger on the grounds of industrial policy—that is, if its,
"contribution to improving production and distribution, to promoting technical or economic progress or to improving the competitive structure within the Common Market outweighs the damage to competition".
I believe that it would not be unfair to say that on the sub-committee there were some feelings of unease about this; namely, that it would not be appropriate to include social, regional and employment criteria in a competition regulation. All the witnesses concurred in this view with the exception of the Law Society of Scotland, which gave both written and oral evidence. The society believes that the proposed regulation's concentration purely on competition issues should be challenged. Article 23 of the Single European Act inserted new articles

479
into the Treaty of Rome. These included an obligation to seek to reduce the disparities between regions and a provision that the implemenation of the single internal market should contribute to this reduction in disparities. It could therefore be argued that, under the treaty, regional issues should not be considered only in the context of specialist measures such as the structural funds, but should be integrated in all policy decisions, including those concerned primarily with competition and trade. In its written evidence to the committee the Law Society of Scotland argued that:
"the Commission should be empowered to look at the impact of a merger not only on the economy of the EEC as a whole, but also on a national or even regional economy, such as that of Scotland".
On 6th December 1988 Commissioner Sutherland, who was then the commissioner responsible for this area, gave evidence to us. In answer to question 112 on page 19 of the report he stated that:
"only the criteria set out in the regulation—compatibility, prohibition and authorisation—will be used and, if social issues are to be involved, they must be subsumed under one of the competition criteria."
He was then questioned closely and quite toughly by members of the committee on the problems of unemployment which could arise in various areas as a result of mergers going through, or alternatively, as could happen, as my noble friend Lord Murray pointed out, not going through. The Commissioner referred to Article 2(3), which did not take very far those of us who were trying to find some trickle of light which would help us to deal with the problem. Later, in answer to a question in which I pointed out the confusing and unsatisfactory nature of the proposals, Commissioner Sutherland said on page 21 of the evidence:
"With regard to the formal point, I think when we use the words 'other than those pursued by the present regulation' in Article 20(3) we indicate we are referring to other matters which are not within the purview of Article 2 and, therefore, we are saying that any other legitimate interest—legitimate within the law of the Community—can be pursued by national authorities other than competition issues. So we do not feel that we are impeded."
That seemed to contradict some of his other answers. On the other hand, to be fair, he was anxious to get the regulation through by the end of the year. In that he was not successful.
My noble friend Lord Murray mentioned the grant for rural development. Since January this year 24 per cent. of the United Kingdom has been eligible. This means the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, rural Wales and parts of England—areas which require help for development. It does not make a great deal of sense to me to create unemployment through competition policy and then try to deal with some of it under a structural fund in which one hands out money but not necessarily jobs. When BP took over Britoil it was then agreed that the headquarters should remain in Aberdeen. Where possible, many of us would like to see that type of decision being made in the future.
I found extremely depressing the evidence from the Department of Trade and Industry on this point. As has already been pointed out, the Government
480
evidently take the view that the sole criterion should be competition and that therefore there should be no mechanism for the authorisation of mergers which are admittedly anti-competitive even if they have other redeeming features. The evidence of Mr. Treadgold can be found on page 80 of the evidence. In answer to a question asking whether mergers will go through regardless of the fact that employment will be devastated in a particular area, Mr. Allen from the Department of Trade and Industry replied:
"That is broadly consistent with the Government's approach to mergers in the UK."
All this has an even wider span. The point was elaborated by James McLean of the Law Society of Scotland in his oral evidence to the committee. He said, in answer to question 248, on page 61 of the evidence:
"If the regional and social element is not enshrined in the merger regulation at a Community level it may, with the passage of time, become extremely difficult for Member States themselves to take account of those values in national legislation. It would look like discrimination in the context of the Single Market".
It is essential that the question of criteria should not be left as it is at the moment but should be pressed hard before it is too late. The regulation has not yet completely gone through. We understand that the Commission want to finalise it by next month. I feel that it is even more important to get it right. If necessary we must fight to try to get something of what I have been putting forward into the interpretation of the regulation and perhaps to insert some definitions in Article 20(3), which would obviously be the place to do it. I hope to do that before it is too late.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, it was a great honour to take part in the proceedings before the Select Committee which produced this report. I should like to start by commending my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton for his guidance in leading the committee through its deliberations. At this stage I also wish to record my praise for the officials who assisted the committee in its work and who efficiently and competently prepared the innumerable technical and legal papers, drafts and advice for our consideration.
We are here concerned with a proposed Council regulation of the European Community. The document before the Select Committee was amended at least twice during our deliberations. Towards the end, the commissoner responsible for the preparation of the regulation, Commissioner Sutherland, completed his term of office and was replaced by Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan. It will therefore come as no surprise that several of the key features of the draft regulation are still the subject of discussions and further consideration both within the Commission and between the governments of the member states.
In such circumstances I should like to comment on the position which is likely to arise in the United Kingdom when the directive or regulation takes effect, I hope your Lordships will allow me to indicate what appear to be the most likely eventual key provisions. First, there is to be a European

481
Community merger control, solely exercisable by the Commission, subject only to one exception for the legitimate interests of member states.
Secondly, this European merger control relates to all mergers of two or more undertakings having a combined pre-taxed turnover of more than an amount which is still in discusson but which looks at the moment as though it will be the equivalent of £1.3 billion. Thirdly, a merger would be disallowed if it creates or strengthens a position as a result of which the maintenance or development of effective competition in a substantial part of the Common Market would be impeded.
Any regulation containing such key provisions is, of necessity, going to require the United Kingdom Government to reconsider the whole of their policies on monopolies and mergers. Those policies should be reconsidered as soon as possible because commerce and industry cannot effectively plan for the future without such guidance. Contrary to many current beliefs, the City is well informed on the probable effects of the EC proposals on industry and commerce in general.
I turn first to the major mergers within the Commission's primary competence. If the trigger amount in terms of turnover is satisfied—whatever the amount eventually agreed to may be—the undertaking which is proposing the merger will have to approach the Commission for its approval before doing anything else. Here the undertaking has to satisfy the Commission in relation to a negative proposition that the proposed merger will not create or strengthen the position as a result of which competition in the Common Market would be impeded. The Commission addresses itself to that question, subject only to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Community.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that the foregoing involves the abandonment of parliamentary oversight of merger decisions. The EC commissioner will be the person having the responsibility for the ultimate decision and he or she is not answerable to Parliament. I understand that there is a procedure in the European Parliament under which a commissioner can be required to justify a decision within his or her sphere of responsibility to that body. But such a procedure is not at present as well-developed as the control Parliament can and does presently exercise over Ministers in this country.
There is one exception to the test which I have stated in relation to major mergers. The draft regulation provides that notwithstanding the provision conferring sole competence in relation to major mergers on the Commission,
"Member States may take appropriate measures where necessary to protect legitimate interests other than those pursued by this Regulation … provided that such interests are sufficiently defined and protected in domestic law and that such measures are compatible with other provisions of Community law".
As I understand this provision, the United Kingdom may give the appropriate Minister, in the circumstances stated, power to consider and block a major merger. But if he does so or purports to do so, the question whether the measures are appropriate in order to protect national interests which are to be
482
regarded as legitimate can and will ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice. It will be the European Court of Justice which will consider whether measures are appropriate and legitimate.
There is therefore a great potential here for a major conflict of interest and policy, unless the grounds on which this exception is allowed to operate in this country—and indeed in other member states—are properly cleared in advance of our approval of the regulation. So the questions which arise here for consideration are, first: what measures will be regarded as appropriate? Secondly, what interests will be regarded as legitimate? Thirdly, what action is to be taken to remove the possibility of future conflicts by getting this matter—if I may put it this way—sorted out with the Commission at this stage? Fourthly, what legislation will be required within the United Kingdom to ensure that the United Kingdom legislation comes within the requisite exception?
That deals very hurriedly with the major mergers. Other mergers which are not within the Community's sole competence are the second side of the question which ought now also to be considered. The intention behind the draft regulation being to give the Commission primary competence on major mergers, the rather confused present situation will continue to apply to the remainder unless something is done. I shall term these other mergers minor mergers for the moment. First, such a minor merger under the present position can contravene Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome. Article 85 prohibits restrictive agreements between competitive undertakings and Article 86 prohibits agreements or arrangements which are an abuse of a dominant position.
Those are the Community law provisions, but there are United Kingdom provisions which apply in this respect. They really relate to a merger which creates or enhances a 25 per cent. market share or which involves a takeover of assets of a value in excess of £30 million. Such a merger can be prohibited by the Secretary of State if it operates against the public interest, which is defined by the relevant statute.
It seems to me that if the United Kingdom law has to be amended to comply with the proposed merger regulation in relation to major Community mergers, it would be sensible to review our legislation in relation to other mergers at the same time. I should therefore question whether such consideration is being given to the present position; whether consideration is being given to the continued application of Articles 85 and 86; and whether there is any way of excluding those provisions from mergers within the United Kingdom.
Proceeding on that basis, there would still be a need for a merger control authority in the United Kingdom. First, it would have to consider the protection of our legitimate interests in the United Kingdom in relation to major Community mergers. Secondly, it would have jurisdiction in relation to all minor mergers having a United Kingdom dimension where the relevant turnover was below the trigger amount in the regulation. In considering those mergers, is it really sensible to maintain the present

483
public interest tests in relation to them, when the tests there are no longer applicable to major mergers which come within the Community's regulation for major mergers?
My questions there are: is there to be a complete overhaul of United Kingdom legislation in that way? Will the minor mergers in the United Kingdom continue to be subject only to the public interest test or will the test be modified to bring it into line with the competition test in force throughout the Community?
In conclusion, I should like to dispel any illusion that if the proposed regulation is put into effect all commercial and industrial undertakings throughout the Community will, in practice, be able to benefit equally thereunder without regard to national frontiers. Undertakings in the United Kingdom are far more open to takeovers than those in other Community countries. In France and Germany, undertakings are subject to a measure of control by the local banks, which regard their customers and their interests on a long-term basis. In Italy and Spain, undertakings are controlled by a system of cross-holdings. In the United Kingdom, as a result of high inflation and taxation, income profits, compared with capital profits—the old notion of long-term investment—have been subject to the professional managers' needs to produce monthly results above the average market rise. People tend to look at short-term rates rather than at long-term benefits.
As the United Kingdom is an open market, it is now being entered by American, Japanese and South American business interests which wish to establish manufacturing bases within the Community before 1992. They cannot easily obtain such bases in other European countries. In our short-term interest, the introduction of those United States and Japanese interests may assist our balance of payments, but I ask whether it is in our long-term interest to see the control of manufacturing undertakings passing out of the United Kingdom in that way and their future profits going abroad. Our City institutions should now be encouraged to start taking a longer-term view of investment.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak in your Lordships' debate this evening because I was uncertain whether I would be able to attend the debate and certainly the early stages of it. With your Lordships' permission I should like briefly to intervene to ask the Minister a few questions of which I have already given him informal notice.
The premise upon which I put my questions to the Minister is that this is a most excellent report produced under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. I do not anticipate the Minister in any way disagreeing with that proposition. Secondly, the premise on which I put my questions to the Minister is that the committee has come out with some very sound recommendations. Again, I am not expecting the Minister to disagree about that. The question is, where do we go from here? More specifically, what
484
assistance can the Government give for the fulfilment of the recommendations of this committee?
I cite one area for your Lordships' consideration and the consideration of the Minister. The noble and learned Lord in introducing the committee's report spoke about the transfer of competence and spoke about the need, before the transfer of competence takes place, as identified in the draft directive, for there to be adequate staffing at the Commission and DG IV when dealing with the anticipated increased work load of competition work at the Commission. Specifically, the noble and learned Lord's committee set out three conditions which it was suggested should be met: first, that there should be sufficient additional staff; secondly, that there should be high calibre staff with relevant experience; and, thirdly, there should be the effective deployment of that staff within the DG IV. I am referring to paragraphs 80, 81 and 82 of the committee's report.
What was the reason for the committee expressing that concern? It is to be found in the evidence which was put before the committee. I cite two examples of it. The joint working party of the legal profession expressed considerable concern about staffing needs. I refer to paragraph 2.5 of its written submissions to the committee which reads as follows:
"If the Commission is to meet the 2 month time limit"—
that is for the commencement of proceedings—
"it is essential that it is to be adequately staffed. Recent UK experience indicates that even normal merger clearances may take 4 to 6 weeks to process, and the UK authorities usually have to consider the impact of mergers on the UK and are dealing only with Government Departments in the UK. In determining the appropriate turnover and market share thresholds to be used in the Regulations, the Working Party urges the Commission not to underestimate the time and resources necessary both to assess the economic impact of Community wide mergers in a variety of industries …and to liaise with … the authorities in those Member States directly concerned by the merger".
Those of your Lordships who have read the report may recall that there was some significant evidence put before the committee by the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in oral testimony before it. I am referring to the testimony of Mr. Sydney Lipworth which is to be found on pages 4 and 5 of the evidence before the Committee. He cited the demands upon the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of certain recent mergers. Of those he particularly cited the BA/B.Cal. merger of November of the year before last and described that as a "fairly heavy merger". He said that six members of the group dealt with it, supported by 16 members of the staff. He spoke of a nine-day hearing concerning this proposed merger and calculated that something like 527 man days were involved. That is a colossal workload and if there is to be a transfer of competence and an increase in the workload of the Commission there must be an anticipation of the great need to deal with staffing.
Specifically, I ask the Minister what assistance the United Kingdom Government will provide concerning the first condition identified by the noble and learned Lord's committee: sufficient additional staff. What representations or influence will Her Majesty's Government use at the Council of Ministers to ensure, among other matters, that

485
appropriate funds are available for a sufficient additional staff.
Further, concerning the high calibre of staff with relevant experience, are Her Majesty's Government able to assist the Commission in secondment of experienced men and women, possibly from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, who would be available on a secondment basis, to assist DG IV. Then in order to meet the third condition, what will Her Majesty's Government do to support the effective deployment of staff within DG IV. That is a mattter for the Commission, as recognised by the noble and learned Lord. Nonetheless, there is an area of influence here.
Those are the questions I wish to put to the Minister because the valuable report which has been put before your Lordships deserves to have influence in the Commission and to have its main recommendations fulfilled.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that I am the last to add my congratulations to the sub-committee for a superb report. It gives a very clear exposition of the directive and of the UK position with respect to monopolies and mergers control. We are also told much of interest about what happens in other countries.
Much as I would be extremely interested in the massive volume to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred, which covers these matters, perhaps he can arrange for it to be sent to your Lordships. I should certainly then read it with great interest. I congratulate the sub-committee on the brevity of its report. It is immensely useful to your Lordships, to the other place and to the wider public of practitioners, lawyers, academics and, not least, academic economists. I look forward to the Minister's reply. The report, I hope, is taken seriously by Her Majesty's Government.
Having said that, I am not uncritical of the report. I shall make one or two critical remarks about it, not least along the lines of what was said by one or two of my noble friends. Before that, apropros at least one of my noble friend's contributions, I ought to reveal at least one bias, namely, that the doctrine of consumer sovereignty is one that I believe in strongly. It never occurred to me to regard it as a heresy. I believe that if my own party had listened to my views over the last 25 years on that doctrine we should be sitting on those Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would be sitting on these Benches. However, as noble Lords will see, I do not have an uncritical view of the consumer sovereignty problem and I wish to place it in the context, mentioned by my noble friends, of employment and the maintenance of full employment.
Before I come to the question of criteria, let me say that I certainly see a need for a Community-wide body to investigate mergers and, more generally, to investigate anti-competitive practices which affect the single market. In my view—I am not a legal expert—more can be done and could have been done under Articles 85 and 86 than has been done. That does not detract from the need for the directive.
486
Equally, the need for a vigorous, dare I say more vigorous, competition policy on local and national markets does not undermine the value of the directive.
The problem is to which mergers the Community regime should apply. We have the usual problem of the desirablity of discouraging mergers and the undesirability of building yet another massive bureaucracy which would be swamped with too much work. In my judgment, the committee is right, at least for the moment, to suggest that, to start with, only the very largest mergers should be considered. Again, expressing a personal view and assuming it was successful, I should want in due course to go some way towards the lowest limits suggested by the Commission.
May I comment on at least one other aspect of the draft regulation? A part that I would most wish to support concerns pre-notification. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, pointed out, there will be mandatory pre-notification under the directive. My noble friends and I tried hard during the debates on the Companies Bill to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to make pre-notification here mandatory. I repeat the point that I still do not understand the Government's position. Essentially they say that it works as if it were mandatory; therefore, there is no reason to make it mandatory. I take exactly the opposite view. There is every reason to make it mandatory.
It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who mentioned the Takeover Panel. It is an oddity, so far as I know, that the Takeover Panel does not exist in the same form anywhere else. I would have liked to see more comment on the Takeover Panel in the report. I revert to my own and my noble friends' view that the Takeover Panel should have a statutory foundation. These ideas were rejected by the Government. I can only repeat that we still hold those views and that they are particularly heightened by the obligation to pre-notify in the regulation.
On the question of who should do the work, I do not see—and I think that most noble Lords agree—how this work can be devolved to the national level either singly or severally. I also agree with the committee that it is not obvious how something akin to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission could be set up at the Community level. Having said that, and reflecting on the committee's report, I wondered whether a case could not be made to establish an independent body to scrutinise the Commission's report on a merger before action could be taken. I throw that out to show that while other noble Lords may find this subject not of riveting interest I actually find it of riveting interest.
On staffing there is a general problem of getting people of ability in this area with the requisite skills. In the United Kingdom we have always lacked economists, lawyers and accountants with a sufficient appreciation of each other's disciplines. This is partly a weakness of our higher education system. However, the professions themselves have never been sufficiently interested in each other.
I, for one, would like to see set up an educational research group in one of our major law departments;

487
say, one which has an interest in monopolies and mergers. If such a group were set up I would very much like to see it have a European dimension as part of its remit. Those of us who have any experience of the United States have always been enormously impressed by how their lawyers, accountants and economists know about the other relevant disciplines. That is all I have to say on staff, but it is an important point because if we are going to do good work in this area we need first-class staff.
May I turn to the relationship between the Community and national merger control. I think that I am slightly at odds here with your Lordships' committee. I can see that if a merger is not cleared at the EC level it cannot logically be cleared at the national level. But supposing it is cleared at the Community level? Let us assume that the Community sees no Community problem. I cannot see logically why a country still could not decide that it had deleterious effects at the national level. Therefore if it had powers to act and investigate it at the national level, I cannot see remotely why it should be prevented from doing so. I simply do not follow the committee on that point. There is an asymmetry there between whether it is cleared or not cleared. I would be convinced that the argument that I have put forward is the correct one. If it were cleared at the Community level, it does not seem to me that it should be taken for granted that it should be cleared at the national level.
We then come to the related question that noble Lords have raised, which is the criteria to be applied. We should remember at all times—and this is set out clearly in the sub-committee's report—the criteria that define the public interest so far as concerns the United Kingdom as set out in Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Those criteria are meant to guide the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Again I and my noble friends have argued that they should also be the explicit guides to the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State. We wanted those written into statute, but we failed in that regard.
I cannot see how we could proceed in the European direction—which is something I am keen for us to do in this area—without arguing that those same criteria should apply. I simply do not see logically how that could be so. One or two noble Lords have pointed out the contradiction between national and European activity. I do not think that we can throw away the criteria which we have used here for so many years and which we take so seriously.
Having said that, first and foremost merger policy must be about competition. That is why it was invented in the first place—to deal with the possibility of anti-competitive practices and restraints of trade. However, first and foremost does not mean solely. That is the key point. There are other considerations to be taken into account.
Some, as the sub-committee recommends, are concerned with so-called national interest. The problem there is that while it would be very nice to be able to say that we believe that national interest has to be taken into account, to do so one has to be precise. My limited experience of government has
488
taught me that that is one area in which governments would never be willing to be precise. They would always want national interests to be a kind of rag-bag which would cover any matter which was exercising them at a particular time. Therefore including the national interest criterion does not please me a great deal, although I always stand to attention when the words "national interest" are mentioned.
The important issue is what the committee refers to as national controls for the purpose of protecting employment or other social or regional interests. The committee do not favour that. I understand their doubts, particularly their administrative doubts. However, I part company with them on this matter.
To revert to my point about consumer sovereignty—which I strongly believe in—to be a consumer you have first and foremost to be a producer, to earn an income, and then you can spend. The whole doctrine of consumer sovereignty is predicated on full employment. If full employment is not guaranteed or employment considerations are not borne in mind then the case for consumer sovereignty is weakened. To put it differently, the case for taking employment—and that undoubtedly includes regional aspects of employment—into account is overwhelming.
Noble Lords will be aware that I am as extreme as any of your Lordships in my antipathy to mergers. I believe that on the whole they do more harm than good. I have argued and I continue to argue that it should be necessary to show positive net benefits before mergers should be allowed to proceed. However, markets, even competitive markets, are imperfect. It is for that reason that other considerations—social, regional, and employment considerations—must be looked at. In saying that, I do not go to the other extreme of saying that they are the only issues that need to be looked at. I simply want to see them weighed in the balance. I very much agree with my noble friends, notably my noble friend Lady Birk, that it will not be acceptable to ignore those matters.
Finally, I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in asking what action is being taken or will be taken. What will be the consequences for the UK if the directive is put into practice? In particular, can we expect that when the Companies Bill returns to your Lordships' House there will be government amendments recognising the existence and the potential of the directive and recognising more generally the European dimension in monopolies and mergers policy?
9.24 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I too join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for his excellent introduction to the debate and, in particular, for the way in which he explained the deliberations of the committee. I should also like to associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Morris when he said in his opening remarks—at least, I think that this was what he said—that the more complicated the subject, the better the report.

489
We have heard a variety of interesting views on this important subject this evening. The problem before us is to establish how best to deal with merger control at the Community level. Those who say that a Community merger control regulation, as currently proposed, would provide the ideal solution to that problem are mistaken. There is much in the Commission's proposals which could and should be clarified and improved.
The European Commission's proposals for a Community merger control regulation have been on the table, in various forms, for over 15 years. But the approach of the single European market has given them new impetus and the pace of discussion has quickened markedly over the last 12 months.
As 1992 approaches, the remaining barriers to trade among the Community countries will gradually be removed. That will no doubt increase the scope for competition from the rest of the Community and increase the importance of that factor in the consideration of mergers.
We welcome the changes being prepared as part of the approach to the single market, provided that they lead to a more competitive market in Europe, which will encourage dynamic and successful business that can compete effectively on the world market. While on that subject, I should say that I look forward to the debate of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, on the Community in a couple of weeks' time.
As your Lordships' comprehensive Select Committee report explains, certain mergers may already be controlled at the European level, under Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. We are therefore not trying to determine whether there should be control of mergers at the Community level, but rather which mergers should fall to Community control, and how the Commission should assess them.
The Commission's proposals for a Community merger control regulation require unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers. In discussions on the draft regulation, the UK continues to maintain a general reservation on the principle of a regulation. That is because we believe that it is very important to consider the Commission's proposals as a package. Many key questions remain unanswered and we shall maintain such a reservation until the proposals as a whole go a good deal further towards meeting our concerns and until the Government are convinced that a regulation would be an improvement on the current position under existing Community law.
Some of the critics of mergers policy in the UK, who argue that it is too parochial, have gone on to say that implementation of the proposed merger control regulation would provide the ideal solution. We believe that that is too simplistic a view. As I said, a degree of control over mergers at the European level does of course already exist in the form of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. However, the extent to which these articles are applicable to merger situations is limited. That is why the Commission is seeking a specific instrument
490
for the control of mergers at the Community level. It is an open question whether the regulation should necessarily provide a better regime for controlling Community mergers than the existing regime of Articles 85 and 86. That will of course depend on how it is framed. That is why we attach great importance to negotiating constructively on the detail of the proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, said that, post-merger, companies' performance was often disappointing. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said—at least, I think that we agree—but it must be for the market to decide and for investors to assess the situation. It is not the role of government to second-guess commercial judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, went on to look at the aspect of companies needing to prove that merger proposals are positively in the public interest. To reverse the burden of proof in that way is inconsistent with the Government's general approach that the market and the shareholders are best placed to decide the outcome of mergers. It would make mergers much harder to carry out and would weaken the discipline of the market over incumbent company managements.
The Government are fully committed to preventing a small number of mergers which are genuinely anti-competitive. But the presumption underpinning all that we do is that in the vast majority of cases the market should be allowed to get on with it. The noble Lord gave an interesting exposé of the Government's merger policy as outlined in the Blue Paper. I believe that he will not be surprised to hear that I am not entirely convinced by his arguments.
My noble friend Lord Morris asked a number of questions on the procedures and the clarity of drafting of Article 2. Of course these require further discussion, such as the extension of timescale for the initial Commission scrutiny of mergers and the drafting of Article 2, but I agree that further work is needed to ensure that procedures are fully worked out and that the bases for decisions are clearly understood. Discussions with the Commission are continuing on all these matters.
I particularly enjoyed the delightful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who gave the view of the practitioner. In particular he highlighted in the committee's report the lack of comment on the takeover panel. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the adoption of the Community merger regulation would not materially alter the operation of the takeover code or its present consensual basis in the United Kingdom.
I felt that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was especially thoughtful and her remarks were backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I have to say that merger control is not intended to freeze a company's status quo. It cannot guarantee employment and of course rationalisation may take place even when no merger has occurred. It has to be part of the management or commercial decisions which a company may take for itself. Mergers may have an effect on local employment but to seize on the immediate effects of mergers as reasons for

491
preventing them would drastically reduce parts of the economy and its flexibility. Nevertheless the Government take note of the sentiments of the noble Baroness.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that this regulation if adopted would contain very important provisions, but we do not consider that this will require reconsideration of the Government's mergers policy. There is no reason for that policy to be reviewed in the light of the regulation. Merger references to the MMC will continue, whether or not the regulation is adopted and our policy for deciding whether to refer will remain the same.
The noble Lord also asked about minor mergers and their applicability to Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty. The Commission has proposed that mergers below the thresholds would not apply because the Commission argues that they do not have a Community dimension. Of course we are examining that approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, gave me notice of the points that he might raise if he were in the Chamber—and I am glad to see that he is. Commissioner Brittan has assured all member states that timely steps will be taken to ensure that adequate and able resources are put in place in good time to ensure that the proposed timescales for decisions can be met. The Commission understands that member states will wish to be satisfied on this point before a regulation could be adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, gave us the benefit of his views and I admire his logical approach to a whole range of problems. In particular he asked about the inconsistency of the European and national criteria for vetting mergers. At the European level the Government's view is that competition should be the criterion. At the national level the Government have emphasised that competition is also the main criterion. However, I follow the noble Lord's argument and there could be an interesting philosophical discussion about what would happen at the two different levels. The Government certainly do not intend to let a regulation be rushed through in an unsatisfactory form. They share the view expressed in the noble and learned Lord's report that there would be no point in a council recommendation which left major areas of uncertainty.
As the report indicates, despite some recent improvements and clarification in the commission's proposal, there are several major issues of central importance still to be resolved on the regulation. There remains a great deal of detailed technical work still to be done.
In conclusion, perhaps I may thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, for his introduction. Perhaps I may say that the report will continue to be studied by the Government with great care.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, in winding up the debate I do not propose at this hour of the evening to take up more of your Lordships' time in seeking to defend the report against criticism. I
492
accept straight away the criticism of my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest that the report concentrates on the legal rather than the practical implications in the general context of competitiveness. We were very conscious that the role of national authorities and national interests is one of the great difficulties in particular when deciding how one reconciles the continuation of a national control by 12 different member states with the philosophy of a Community control and possibly a one-stop shop.
These are difficult questions. In recommending the report for debate the committee was very much aware that much of what emerged from the report would be of a controversial nature. This debate has amply illustrated that. I have regarded my task as presenting rather than defending the report. I believe and hope that the debate we have had tonight has been a most useful and constructive one. I am grateful to noble Lords who have been kind enough to compliment me on my very minor part in the production of the report. It only remains for me to thank those noble Lords who have spoken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.

  SMALL CAR EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS
  SMALL CAR EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS
  EUROPEAN LANGUAGES FOR BUSINESSMEN
  EUROPEAN LANGUAGES FOR BUSINESSMEN
  ADVERTISEMENTS AND THE LAW
  ADVERTISEMENTS AND THE LAW
  IMMIGRATION: PRE-CLEARANCE
  IMMIGRATION: PRE-CLEARANCE
  REFUGEES
  REFUGEES
  LEWES PRIORY COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL: REMOVAL OF TEACHERS
  LEWES PRIORY COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL: REMOVAL OF TEACHERS
  JOB VACANCY STATISTICS
  JOB VACANCY STATISTICS
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATIONS
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATIONS
  TURKEY: OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
  TURKEY: OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
  WESTMINSTER AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: LIAISON
  WESTMINSTER AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: LIAISON
  MAFF: CHANGES TO VOTE LIMITS
  MAFF: CHANGES TO VOTE LIMITS