Sitting of 9 November 1989

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Monday 13 November.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

        BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
        Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
        To be considered on Monday 13 November.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Wednesday 15 November.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 13 November.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 15 November.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
    1144
    That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Tuesday 14 November at Seven o'clock.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Monday 13 November at Seven o'clock.

    PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] [SUSPENSION]
    Motion made,
    That so much of the Lords Messages [2nd November, 7th November and 8th November] as relates to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
    That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered this day at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Bill
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the forthcoming food Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a wide range of representations. I intend to introduce new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
    Mr. Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the forthcoming food Bill will not impose unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation on Britain's very successful food industry? Is he aware, for example, that many small, traditional family bakers could be driven out of business by the proposal to refrigerate or to freeze their products, particularly when those products are sold on the same day as they are produced? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the small corner bread shop is protected?
    Mr. Gummer: The particular point to which my hon. Friend refers comes from a different source, but,in general, it is vital for the success of the British food industry that British consumers should feel that food is entirely safe and that we are acting on their side when we try to ensure that any gaps in the existing law are filled. I put food safety first and I hope that we will be able to achieve that end with the least amount of bureaucracy.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister ensure that the new Bill contains clear regulations concerning the importation and sale of irradiated food? Does he share my concern about reports that irradiated food, such as prawns and shell fish, has found its way into this country, been sold to companies, processed into canned food and sold in our shops? Will he ensure that the new Bill contains clauses to prevent such activities?
    Mr. Gummer: If what the hon. Gentleman says were true I would be extremely concerned. I heard this allegation, yet again, but I was disappointed to find that those who made it had not bothered to put in front of me the evidence that they claimed to have. I asked immediately for that evidence and three days later, it arrived. I am having it examined urgently. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that consumers should choose whether they want irradiated food. All irradiated food should be properly labelled; then it will be for the consumer to decide.

    Saccharin
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consideration he has given to the case for reducing the level of saccharin intake on health grounds and its implications for his decision to abolish the minimum sugar standard for soft drinks: and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Maclean): I have
    1146
    asked my independent advisory committee for advice on the level of saccharin in certain foods. The revised soft drinks regulations retain, for the present, their statutory maximum level on the use of saccharin.
    Mr. Shersby: In view of the urgent advice which my hon. Friend seeks from his expert committees about the need to reduce the level of saccharin in the diet, is it not unwise at the same time to abolish the minimum sugar standard of soft drinks and thus open the way to the use of more artificial sweeteners, instead of safe and nutritious natural sweeteners?
    Mr. Maclean: Just because we are removing the minimum sugar standard in drinks does not mean that there will be an increase in artificial sweeteners. We are maintaining the present regulation which insists on not more than a certain amount of saccharin in all soft drinks and food.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that if the level of saccharin were reduced to protect the health of the people of the United Kingdom, that would give an opportunity for the greater use of cane sugar from the Commonwealth and help Commonwealth producers?
    Mr. Maclean: It may and it may not. Most soft drinks already contain much more than the minimum level of sugar. Even if it was found that there were risks connected with saccharin and people used less saccharin in soft drinks, an increase in the amount of sugar in soft drinks would not automatically follow.
    Sir William Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the abolition takes place, a large tonnage of sugar will be lost to the market? Has the Ministry made any estimate of what that loss will be? My information is that it will be about 150,000 tonnes a year. If that is so, what effect will it have on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—the Commonwealth countries which, under the Lomé convention, have quotas of cane sugar coming into this country?
    Mr. Maclean: I repeat the point: the abolition of the minimum requirement of sugar will not result in a substantial reduction in sugar in soft drinks. Many soft drinks, by their nature, require sugar for their flavour and texture. We believe that labelling is the correct requirement and if people want drinks with less sugar, those drinks should be labelled so that people can make their own decisions. The consumers' safety is paramount.

    Fisheries Policy
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Curry): I shall attend the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27 November.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In a recent Adjournment debate the Minister gave a commitment that there would be an announcement on a decommissioning scheme this side of Christmas. Is the Ministry in a position to make such an announcement?
    Mr. Curry: I see no reason to change my position: we should settle this by Christmas. However, this will not be on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, and I do not intend to raise it with the Council.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable unease about the implications of the recent statement by the European Court, and the subsequent action taken, on the availability of fish off the south-west coast in the English channel? Will he assure the House that during the next negotiations he will seek an enhanced total allowable catch to take account of the additional fishing vessels in our waters?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend raises two points: the first relates to the so-called quota hoppers. We are confident that we still have a substantial provision, which is supported by the court, to defend ourselves against the great bulk of those hoppers. Whether I press for additional amounts of fish depends on the scientific evidence available to us. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall do so if the evidence from the scientists shows that it would be imprudent. I cannot invent fish, and there are not enough of them about at the moment.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister discusses quotas and the total allowable catch with the scientists. Will he conduct an urgent investigation into the quality of scientific advice? It cannot be right that one year we are given one total allowable catch, and the next year it is cut by a third. We do not know where we are. Will the Minister make provision for an increase in the allowable catch, set up a far-reaching inquiry and ensure that the scientific evidence is right so that we can achieve stability in the industry?
    Mr. Curry: I am always willing to review the methodology of the collection of information on total allowable catches. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done by an international body. What I am not willing to do, once that evidence is presented, is to apply some sort of political coefficient to it just because that is convenient for political reasons. We depend on scientific advice reached objectively. I shall review it, but I will not invent fish.

    Geese and Ducks (Defeathering)
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest situation as regards the EEC proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for defeathering of geese and ducks.
    Mr. Gummer: The European Community has made no proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for this purpose.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the British poultry industry about a proposed Government regulation to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax in the defeathering process, as part of a more general ban on mineral hydrocarbon oils? Is he further aware that the food science laboratory says that such waxes and oils have no effect on human health and that the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concurred with that view? Even if the ban were imposed, it would not apply to our European competitors; as a result it would hand a
    1148
    large part of the British poultry market to those competitors and there would be no improvement in the health of the people eating the birds.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to reassert that the primary purpose of Government legislation in this area is the safety of the public. That must come first. I am looking at the representations from the industry, and I realise its concern.
    It would, of course, also be ridiculous to put ourselves into a position in which people could not buy British products but could buy continental products which had been treated in exactly the same way as those that we had prohibited in Britain. This matter must primarily be sorted out in the European Community and I am considering the best way of doing that.
    Mr. Ashton: If the Minister cannot tell us about geese and ducks, can he tell us about defeathering Prime Ministers? Is there to be a stalking horse or not?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come often to agriculture questions, because the industry that we are discussing and the consumers who use its products are the most important in Britain. We want to ensure that the industry is healthy and we do not like it being used for cheap political jibes.

    Food Labelling
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has had since taking office with retailers on the subject of food labelling.
    Mr. Maclean: I have met a number of retailers individually and collectively and have discussed with them a wide range of labelling matters.
    Mr. Marshall: Apart from these discussions, has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry the need for proper refrigeration and storage? Does he agree that if all retailers were as good as Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury there would be no problem of food poisoning?
    Mr. Maclean: I have visited some large superstores especially to look at refrigeration and I am well aware of the high standards in the vast majority of superstores, markets and shops in this country. Nevertheless, my colleagues in the Department of Health are examining measures to improve our refrigeration and storage yet further and we are co-operating fully with them.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: If the Minister persists in allowing irradiation, will he make sure that irradiated food is labelled as such and does not have a stupid label stuck on it whose meaning would not be obvious to the consumer?
    Mr. Maclean: It is very simple. I repeat the promise made from this Dispatch Box on many occasions: irradiated food will be properly labelled with the words "irradiated" or "subjected to ionising radiation". A logo is not in itself sufficient.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that if his welcome food labelling initiative is to be successful, the labels on food packages must be honest? What plans does he have to ensure that the origin of food products is clearly marked and that labels marked "British beef', "British lamb" or "British eggs" mean what they say?
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister made that very point in an important speech yesterday. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that labelling must be honest. For example, Britain has set up UKROFS—the United Kingdom register of organic food standards—to ensure that the important organic food sector is not damaged by anyone who puts on food an organic label which it might not deserve. We are trying to introduce that system across the EEC because it is best to have EEC-wide organic food standards.
    Mr. Ron Davies: If the Minister understands the importance of information in facilitating consumer choice, why on earth does he not pursue a more vigorous policy? Will he acknowledge that the scheme that he presently favours is only voluntary and will not provide essential information such as the amount of sugar in a product or allow a consumer to differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats? They are major deficiencies. Will the Minister reconsider the scheme for which he is arguing in the Council and recognise that, if nutrition labelling is to be effective, it must be not only comprehensive but mandatory?
    Mr. Maclean: I reject the hon. Gentleman's point. Britain is in the lead in nutritional labelling in the EEC. The hon. Gentleman must face the political reality that not many other EEC countries agree with the Government's labelling initiative on nutritional standards. As there is no prospect of a compulsory scheme being accepted at this stage, I see no point in bashing my head against a brick wall on this point. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are requirements in the directive. We can have mandatory labelling for certain nutrients if we perceive a particular risk. The British Government are insisting on a review of the voluntary proposals in three years' time to see whether they are working adequately.

    Dairy Sector
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss a range of issues affecting the industry.
    Mr. Knox: When my hon. Friend next meets the president, will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining milk prices to ensure the continuing viability of dairy farms, particularly small dairy farms, which are essential if the fabric of the countryside as we know it is to be retained?
    Mr. Curry: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Dairying is essential to the countryside. Real incomes in the dairy sector increased by 16 per cent. last year because quotas brought stability and profitability, and we aim to keep it that way.
    Mr. Cryer: When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector, will he take into account the fact that there is a large butter surplus—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, there is not."] It is part of the dairy sector. When the Minister distributes the large
    1150
    dairy surplus in the form of butter, will he make sure that there is no confusion and disruption in Bradford, for example, because there are too few outlets for free EEC butter? Instead of obstructing distribution and refusing to allow new outlets, will the Minister adopt a different policy and thereby avoid the confusion, frustration and bad tempers that arise because of the long queues that are formed as a result of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat out of date. There is no longer a butter surplus. The justification for the scheme to which he refers is no longer relevant: it was to dispose of a surplus that no longer exists. If I had my way, I would not continue it at all.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: My hon. Friend knows well that we cannot discuss dairy farming in isolation from other sectors. For example, wheat prices are 40 per cent. below what they were four years ago and bread prices are up by 20 per cent. As three companies mill 95 per cent. of Britain's flour, is it not time that we referred them to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that the arable sector has been under considerable pressure. That is why we are seeking to assist it in the European negotiations. We have always been hostile to the co-responsibility levy, which is such a burden upon the arable sector. I am sure that we shall continue to seek higher profitability in this important sector of our countryside.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister explain to the House why, having been informed by Dutch agriculture authorities on 1 November of the presence of lead-contaminated animal feedstock in the United Kingdom, he waited five days until 6 November before imposing restrictions? Why did he not issue precautionary notices to farmers immediately, warning them not to give this contaminated feedstock to their animals, thereby avoiding unnecessary cattle deaths and potentially hazardous milk entering the food chain?
    Mr. Curry: The Minister acted with exemplary promptness. The hon. Gentleman has made a profession of trying to promote this sort of scare. We took action immediately. We recalled the contaminated feedstock and we have taken steps to ensure that no milk is distributed from the farms and no animals are slaughtered off the farms. We have taken every measure that could be taken and acted with a promptness of which the hon. Gentleman would have been proud had he been responsible for it.

    Hens
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the testing of small flocks of free-range hens.
    Mr. Gummer: I have received a large number of representations. These were taken into account in the preparation of the new orders of 26 October and will result in a considerable reduction in the cost of testing, particularly for small flocks.
    Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the testing requirements for salmonella for small flocks have caused considerable concern for organisations such as the Women's Institute and for people such as my mother-in-law, who sell free-range eggs at stalls at

    1151
    Women's Institute branches and at farm gates? These organisations and individuals will welcome the much simplified testing arrangements. the substantially reduced requirement for testing and the substantially reduced costs of testing for salmonella. Any reasonable-minded person will feel that my right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance.
    Mr. Gummer: I have received many letters from people who have stated that we have done exactly what was right. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's mother-in-law was among them. We had to put the safety of the eggs first. If we had not done that, smaller flocks such as those owned by my hon. Friend's mother-in-law might have been blamed for a future outbreak of salmonella. That would have been damaging to the consumer and to my hon. Friend's mother-in-law.
    Mr. Beith: Why was it that when one of my constituents from Wooler made representations to the Minister on this matter and was featured in a national newspaper, a newspaper cutting was sent to the regional eggs inspector, who was dispatched on a 300-mile trip to warn my constituent to stop selling eggs that were not in boxes and had not been through a packing station? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to enforce these crazy packing rules on all free-range eggs sold in shops, or is enforcement reserved as a form of intimidation that is more characteristic of East European regimes than one would expect in this country?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is being less than kind. We sought to help his constituent—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should hear me out. In the course of becoming aware of the lady's problem, we discovered that she might inadvertently have been breaking the law. She may have been doing what the hon. Gentleman said: selling her product through the village shop. We have laws that are designed to protect people from being ripped off. If we allowed free-range eggs to be sold that were not boxed some people would try to obtain a premium from eggs that were not produced in that way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman belonged to a party which believed in protecting the consumer. I put the consumer first.
    Mr. Key: As a rural Member, I have been under pressure from a number of members of the Women's Institute, including my wife, about egg production. I hope that my right hon. Friend can clarify a serious issue that arises from the orders that he has laid. There is genuine confusion about small flocks. When there is talk about a small flock of fewer than 25 birds, does that mean chickens or a combination of 25 chickens and ducks, for example? Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position?
    Mr. Gummer: We are talking about 25 chickens. The combination position is quite different. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that those of us who believe that we should be allowed to buy free range eggs, in the knowledge that they are both safe and free range when we pay for them, do not want the market to be undermined by those who want to get rid of the restrictions. We do not want them to move in and make a fast buck.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that in recent months six consignments of imported eggs have been found to be contaminated with salmonella, yet all those consignments have been sold on the British market
    1152
    without let or hindrance? What is the point of driving 1,600 British egg producers out of business, as the Government have done during the past year, and then allowing foreign producers to fill the gap in the market without being subject to equivalent safety tests? Should there not now be effective health controls on all eggs supplied to British shops?
    Mr. Gummer: Of course I can confirm those figures because they are my own figures; they were given to the hon. Gentleman by my Ministry. The hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no service if he does not admit that the Government are fighting for our regulations on salmonella to be extended throughout the whole of the European Community. That is the only fair way to go about things. In the meantime, the 97 per cent. of eggs that people buy in this country, which are produced by this country's farmers, are all the safer because they are protected by our regulations. The hon. Gentleman should be fighting for people in Britain to buy British eggs, knowing that they are better protected. He and his hon. Friends should not constantly try to undermine the market.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not true that free-range hens can often be more at risk of salmonella than battery hens because of birds of the air and others farmyard detritus? Have the figures that my hon. Friend has produced helped to resolve that argument?
    Mr. Gummer: When the salmonella arguments began, there were those who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the problem would help them in their argument in favour of free-range hens rather than battery hens. The very best that can be said is that there is no proof that the risks of salmonella are any less in free-range eggs than they are in any other sort of eggs. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right to say that there are natural hazards which could perhaps lead to somewhat greater risks in free-range eggs.
    If we are to have a healthy egg industry in Britain, we must ensure that our eggs are better protected than other eggs. People should be aware that the eggs that they buy are much safer and much more likely to be healthy eggs if they buy British. Whether my hon. Friend or his constituents want battery eggs, perch eggs or free-range eggs, they should first ensure that they are buying British eggs.

    Sheep
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the present state of the British sheep industry.
    Mr. Curry: The industry is pleased that the essential decisions on reform of the sheepmeat regime have been taken and is anxious to get on with the job of securing export markets.
    Mr. Livsey: What assistance will the Minister give to those sheep farmers in the less-favoured areas who this autumn have suffered a drop of at least one third in the sale value of their breeding ewes? That is a serious loss. Will the Minister therefore consider paying compensation to farmers who have sustained that loss due to changes in the transitional arrangements of the European Community sheepmeat regime?
    Mr. Curry: There has been a drop in breeding ewe prices, although of late the recovery has been quite sharp. Some uncertainty played a part in that, but weather conditions resulting in lack of grass and forage also played a significant role. I am not prepared to consider compensation, but I am prepared to set out the final details of the regime so that there is certainty. The producers whom the hon. Gentleman and I represent in our constituencies will have a buoyant export market and stability to look forward to, which is far more useful to them than living in a permanent state of uncertainty with the threat of a change in their regime always imminent but never quite happening.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British sheep industry recently suffered the grievous loss of a trans-shipment of sheep from New Zealand to a constituent of mine. They were a special strain of sheep which is gradually becoming extinct and they died as a result of the activities of customs officers at Honolulu airport. Will my hon. Friend make the strongest representations to the Americans to ensure that sheep coming to Britain in future will not have to remain for an hour and a half on the tarmac without air conditioning?
    Mr. Curry: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. We have already taken up that matter most strongly with the United States authorities and will continue to press it.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Minister give the House a categorical guarantee that British sheep farmers will not be any worse off as a result of the negotiations currently taking place in Brussels?
    Mr. Curry: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Commission's proposals to limit hill livestock compensatory allowances to the less-favoured areas. I can tell him categorically that we are opposed in principle to the Commission's suggestion because it discriminates against British farming.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Scotland the Highland clearances removed the people so that sheep could be put in the glens and on the mountains. Is he satisfied that the changes that have taken place in the common agricultural policy will not result in a second Highland clearance, this time of the sheep? Will he confirm the strategic need to maintain the livestock on Scotland's hills?
    Mr. Curry: I certainly confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. Continuing with the previous system would have threatened that livelihood in the hills and we were under continual pressure on that. However, as I have already said, we are determined to fight for the future of the British uplands which, in many cases, is based upon sheep.

    Pesticides
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his advisory committee on pesticides last met; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Maclean: The advisory committee on pesticides last met on 19 October when it reviewed a number of pesticides, the labelling of timber treatment products and the operation of the wildlife incident investigation scheme.
    Mr. McCartney: Is the Minister aware that on Tuesday this week I introduced a Bill to ban pesticides such as lindane? Is he also aware that since then I have been inundated with telephone calls from doctors, solicitors and members of families complaining of cases in which people have suffered from illnesses similar to that produced by lindane poisoning? This is a grossly under-reported area of the market. Will the Minister meet the all-party home safety committee and appropriate Ministers from other Departments to discuss the serious matter of the poisoning of the home environment by lindane and other nasty chemicals which can still be sold in do-it-yourself stores throughout Britain?
    Mr. Maclean: I took the opportunity of reading the speech that the hon. Gentleman made when he introduced his 10-minute Bill last Tuesday. The possible effects of lindane on the food chain have been reviewed by my Department's independent advisory committee on pesticides and we are satisfied that the uses of lindane in the agricultural sector are now so limited that there is no damage to the food chain. However, the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing lindane's industrial and home uses and I cannot comment on that at this stage.
    Mr. Boswell: Is not the Department to be congratulated on its recently published attractive booklet on pesticide use which deals with the issues in an adult manner? Will my hon. Friend undertake to release as much information as possible within the limits of confidentiality to contribute to a full debate on this important matter?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend. I thought that the booklet was excellent, and I hope that it will be widely circulated among hon. Members and the community. It explains the rigorous checks that the Government apply to all pesticides, and the work of the independent academic experts who give the Government the best advice in the world.
    Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern about the use of the chemical nuvan as a pesticide in fish farming, especially salmon farming? What advice has he received from the advisory committee about the damage done by that chemical to the natural life of the sea, and to the environment in general?
    Mr. Maclean: That pesticide is due for review by our independent advisory committee, and I do not wish to say anything before that review is completed.

    Straw Burning
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the current measures designed to regulate straw burning.
    Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend the Minister has already announced a far-reaching review of straw and stubble burning, which will take account of the many representations that we have received. We hope to announce the conclusions of the review shortly.
    Mr. Porter: I appreciate that my hon. Friend will wish to strike a happy balance between those who want a total ban and farmers who regard burning straw stubble as a

    1155
    necessity. I commend to my hon. Friend the proposal for a proper regulated licensing scheme, which I feel would strike that happy balance.
    Mr. Maclean: We shall consider every proposal put to us, including that one. I promise all hon. Members who wrote to me about the matter that we shall consider their views, and those of their constituents, very thoroughly.
    Mr. Morley: Given the considerable potential for commercial and energy-based use of straw—and given that the arguments for burning it are tenuous, and that burning leads to habitat destruction, pollution and considerable nuisance for those living in rural areas—does the Minister agree that it is time that he drew up distinct proposals for an outright ban, rather than byelaws which have been shown not to work by the National Society for Clean Air?
    Mr. Maclean: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I have enjoyed his speeches in the past.
    I repeat that we shall consider carefully all representations made to us. My Department already encourages alternatives to straw burning through a variety of publicity campaigns. Those alternatives include straw incorporation and its use as a fuel, and we make grants available to assist firms wishing to develop equipment for such purposes.

    Hill Compensatory Allowances
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on discussions held with the European Community concerning hill compensatory allowances.
    Mr. Curry: We are firmly opposed in principle to Commission proposals that would discriminate against British farmers in the less-favoured areas, where they are essential to the welfare of our countryside.
    Mr. Howells: Can the Minister give an assurance that any withdrawal of FEOGA funds will be made up by the Government? Can he give a further assurance that the hill compensatory allowance for this year will be increased?
    Mr. Curry: We oppose the Commission's proposals in principle, and our first battle involves making certain that we impress on our negotiating partners the fact that we will not surrender a principle that is so important to us. All other issues are subsidiary to that.

    Liquid Milk
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate for the volume of liquid milk available for use in the confectionery industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: The main use of liquid milk bought by the confectionery industry is for the manufacture of chocolate crumb. The current estimate of supplies for this purpose in the period January to August 1989 is 155 million litres, which compares with 153 million litres in 1983.
    Mr. Gregory: Why is the volume of liquid milk available to the United Kingdom confectionery industry consistently held back? Companies such as Rowntree of York are forced to invest millions of pounds in machinery to take powdered milk when they would prefer to use
    1156
    liquid milk. Will my hon. Friend hold urgent discussions to ensure that quotas are increased so that the industry can use this natural product?
    Mr. Curry: There is a proposal to increase quotas, but we are opposed to it because we believe that there is no case for an increase across the Community as a whole. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the milk marketing board is altering its seasonal scale to encourage producers to produce milk more in the trough. I hope that that will go some way towards solving the problem.
    Mr. Martlew: In view of that reply, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write a letter of apology to the Dairy Trade Federation after the ridiculous and crass speech that he made yesterday to the federation? He criticised it for its inability to affect the amount of dairy imports when in reality there is not enough milk in this country for manufacture. Will the Minister ensure that his right hon. Friend sends that letter of apology and is briefed before he speaks again to the federation?
    Mr. Curry: Not the least of my right hon. Friend's talents is his ability to tell home truths to people who might not be interested in receiving them.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1990.
    Mr. Curry: An announcement on the 1990 hill livestock compensatory allowance rates and the scheme conditions will be made as soon as possible, following completion of the autumn review of the economic conditions in the hill and upland areas.
    Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that continued livestock farming in the upland areas is indispensable to much of Britain's finest countryside, not to mention many rural communities? If so, does he agree that an increase in the HLCA payments to help hill farmers through their current difficulties would be the best value for money of any environmental expenditure?
    Mr. Curry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of hill farmers as we have neighbouring constituencies which share the same characteristics. Our first priority is to make sure that we get this right in Brussels. Then it will depend on getting it right in the United Kingdom.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Haynes: In the shambles of the privatisation of nuclear energy, who should take the blame? Should it be the advisers who advise or the Ministers who decide?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.
    The Prime Minister: If there were a shambles, that question would arise. As there is not, it does not.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an intrinsic part of Conservative philosophy to conserve our environment and our heritage? Further, does my right hon. Friend accept that all those who are concerned with preserving the rain forests will applaud the practical lead that she has given towards that end?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have given a lead in tackling the problems of climate change. In particular, we have given a lead in our aid programme for conserving the forests, especially in Brazil, where, through my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, we signed the first such agreement between an industrial country and a country with tropical forests. We have also signed one with India. I was able to announce at the United Nations the earmarking of £100 million under our tropical forest action programme. That is good news, both for developing countries and for the developed world.
    Mr. Kinnock: What is the Prime Minister's answer to the question put to her and her colleagues by Brighton ambulance man Brian Murray, holder of the British Empire Medal, who asked: "Why do they have such short, ungrateful memories?"
    The Prime Minister: We have great gratitude to the ambulance men. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, through the Whitley council they were offered a 6·5 per cent. increase backdated to April and in London 9·3 per cent., backdated to April, both of which would amount to quite a considerable small lump sum if it were taken now. They had also reached an agreement on 24 October about how to run the emergency services. We very much regret that that agreement is not being honoured. It was fully agreed between management and people.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is so confident of the case, why does she not let Mr. Murray and his colleagues go to arbitration? Does she recognise that to lavish praise on ambulance people at the time of a disaster and then to stop them going to arbitration is gross hypocrisy?
    The Prime Minister: No. This is negotiated through the Whitley council. It was negotiated through the Whitley council and was recommended for acceptance.
    Mr. Leigh: When my right hon. Friend completed her interview with Mr. Brian Walden, did she receive any complaints from the programme staff about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had wriggled out of giving
    1158
    his interview? When she was Leader of the Opposition, did she ever fear to have her intellectual competence questioned?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask a question on which the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility.
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bell: During the course of her busy day, would the Prime Minister take time to read yesterday's Evening Standard headline:
    "Thatcher's Plan to Save The World"?
    Will she kindly tell the House, in the scheme of things, what ambassadorship she would offer the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), what post she would offer the deputy leader of the Tory party, the deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and what are her plans for the universe?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of reading the speech.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for persuading our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to listen to the pleas of Andrew Gorst, a 14-year-old pupil at Ripley St. Thomas in my constituency, who keeps 48 hens and has some very satisfied customers. He would have had to pay as much as someone with 10,000 hens but now he will pay at a very reduced rate. I should like to say "Thank you very much" to my right hon. Friend.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister deserves all the compliments for listening to the case of a small farmer and taking the requisite action.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Prime Minister agree that her announcement in New York yesterday of £5·5 million for environmental research is a poor substitute for the £33 million that she withdrew from the natural environment research council in February this year? That affected 160 scientists, 41 of whom are involved in research into ozone and the glowing heat effect. Will she reinstate that budget?
    The Prime Minister: The grant allocated to the natural environment research council by the advisory board for all research councils was put up, having regard to the importance of the work of the British Antarctic Survey, to the importance of the world experiment on the circulation of the oceans—we shall take part in that—and to the need to put more into satellite work on monitoring climate change.
    Mr. Gale: Can my right hon. Friend think of any circumstances in which it might be proper to take industrial action against the sick, the disabled and the infirm? Can she think of any occasion on which such action has been condemned by the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: It is always a matter of great regret and concern if strike action is taken against the sick and the infirm, particularly when there was an agreement on 24

    1159
    October with regard to accident and emergency services which is not now being operated. We must also bear in mind that nine out of 10 miles done by the ambulance service are not for accidents and emergencies but to get people to hospital, whether as in-patients or out-patients. Most of those non-emergency people are managing excellently to get themselves to hospital. But that does not alter the main point of my hon. Friend's question—that action should not be taken against the sick.
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McCartney: When the chairman of the Conservative party recently said that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), had resigned because of long-standing serious differences with the Prime Minister on economic policy, was he telling the truth?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the statements that I made at the Dispatch Box last week.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on recently announced measures to assist the disabled.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has recently announced a number of measures to give extra help to some 500,000 disabled people and carers. These will add a further £100 million on top of the £8·3 billion a year being spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people in real terms. That is nearly double what was being spent in 1979.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for the recent improvements, especially the carers' allowance and the mobility allowance for deaf-blind people. Does she recall her 1979 commitment to introduce a system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disablement? Will she therefore take a personal interest in the current review of disability benefits to ensure that that promise is implemented to help the 6 million disabled people in Britain to live a life of dignity?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that we have honoured our pledge by increasing the amount spent on the disabled by 90 per cent. in real terms—that is, over and above inflation—since 1979. The number of people receiving help with their extra costs through mobility allowance has increased sixfold and through attendance allowance threefold over the past decade. That is a record of which the Government can be proud. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that we shall be seeking to do more to help many disabled people who at present do not receive mobility allowance or attendance allowance.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that although her figures are correct, the impression that she seeks to create is false? In the past 10 years the real value of the average male take-home pay has risen by 20 per cent. while
    1160
    the average real value of disablement benefit has risen by less than 1 per cent. That is why her boast about helping disabled people has a hollow ring.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the many people who now receive disablement benefits but did not receive them before will find that that comes with a hollow ring. There are many people in receipt of disablement benefits who never received them before. Spending on the disabled has increased from £1·8 billion in 1978–79 to £8·3 billion in cash terms. That is an increase of £4 billion in real terms. Of that real increase, £3·5 billion is attributable to the increased number of beneficiaries—those who otherwise would not have received benefit—and £500 million to the increase in the average amounts paid.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the disabled is to target help to those who are most in need? Does she particularly welcome the new benefits of up to £65 per week for families with severely disabled babies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the sum of £65 per week which is intended to help those people. I know my hon. Friend's personal record in this matter and the tremendous interest that he has taken in that aspect of disablement and we all honour him for the lead that he has given.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) this morning again put the Government's view that there is no compatibility between the dangers faced by firefighters and those faced by ambulance workers? Where does the Prime Minister think that ambulance workers were at King's Cross or the Brighton hotel, when she was particularly pleased to see them—waiting outside like glorified taxi drivers? When will she stop treating the women and men of the ambulance service as though they were members of her Cabinet? Why does she not pull out the Army, pay ambulance workers the money and stop risking lives?
    The Prime Minister: First, the point about comparability with other emergency services was considered by the Clegg commission, which was set up by a Labour Government but whose recommendations were honoured by a Conservative Government because the Labour Government did not have the money—they just made promises. The Clegg commission did not uphold the demand for comparability between the services. The London ambulance service has been offered 9·3 per cent., backdated to April. The way to conduct the negotiations was through the Whitley council.
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the route selected for the M3 around Winchester,

    1161
    it will inevitably cause serious environmental damage? As it was the Government of the day who diverted the route from the open country to the north of Winchester to the sensitive area to the south-east of Winchester, will she reassure the House that the Secretary of State for Transport will speedily be given sufficient funds to ensure that whatever route is finally selected it will be friendly to the special and historic environment around Winchester, which is a national asset?
    The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this as he has been in correspondence and has been to see me about it. He knows that at the moment my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the reports of two independent inspectors, who held public inquiries into proposals for that road scheme. I cannot anticipate what their decisions will be, but I know that they fully understand the importance of environmental issues in cases such as this.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I3 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day—2nd Part). Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The need for a clear change of Government policy on Cambodia".
Motion to take note of EC documents on a European environment agency and a monitoring and information network. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY I4 NOVEMBER—Supplemental guillotine motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motion relating to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations.
Motion to take note of EC document on Bovine Somatotropin. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY I5 NOVEMBER—Motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community January-June 1989 (Cm. 801).
THURSDAY I6 NOVEMBER—It will be proposed that the House will meet for prorogation at 9.30 am.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords Messages and other business as necessary.
[Monday 13 November

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 8030/89

European Environment Agency

(b) 9785/86

Fourth Community Environmental Action Programme

(c) 9182/88

Access to Information on the Environment

(d) 8882/89

Environment and Natural Resource Information Collection

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxii (1988–89), para 4, and HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 7

(b) HC 22-ii ( 1986–87), para 12 and HC 22-xi ( 1986–87), para 1

(c) HC 15-xv (1988–89), para 2

(d) HC 15-xxxvi (1988–89), para 9

Tuesday 14 November

Relevant European Community Document

(a) 8975/89

Bovine Somatotrophin

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 11.]

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House assist the House by saying when the Chancellor's Autumn Statement will be, assuming that there is to be one next week? I am sure that even Conservative Members are anxious to hear the good news from the Treasury.
1164
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 68, "Treatment of widows of servicemen"?
[That this House recognises the unfair treatment of the war widows and widows of servicemen who retired before 31st March 1973 and those widows who married their husbands after their retirement from the Armed Forces both prior and subsequent to 6th April 1978 and urges Her Majesty's Government to remove these artificial time bars in order that all war widows and widows of servicemen may receive the current rate for those pensions irrespective of the date of their husbands' retirement or the date of their marriage.]
With Remembrance Sunday imminent, and with the widespread all-party support of more than half the Members of Parliament, will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on our treatment of widows of service men?
Given today's long list of private Bills and the huge congestion in private business and carry-over motions, will the Leader of the House make an early and positive response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure? I hope that he will feel able to do so. Again, I am sure that such a statement would be warmly welcomed in the House.
Given the announcement of yet another guillotine motion and the fact that the Session has ended with a plethora of such motions, late nights and masses of last-minute Government amendments to legislation, does the Leader of the House recognise that in economic policy and in Cabinet government, as well as in legislative terms, the Government have ended the Session in a shambles, while Labour Members are happy to end it with a substantial majority of the British people looking forward to a Labour Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to justify his change of perch on the Opposition Front Bench. We are not at all impressed by this repeated assertion about a shambles. The British people will continue to support the Government with total confidence.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an illustration of the orderly way in which we respond to his questions. He asked first about the possibility of an Autumn Statement. For the convenience of the House, I should say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to be able to make the Autumn Statement on Wednesday.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about war widows, I am sure that he will not need me to emphasise the extent to which the Government and the House have great sympathy for war widows. We recognise the sacrifice that they have made. As a matter of fact, they already receive preferential treatment in terms of pensions and allowances, which have recently been extended and improved by the Government. Further improvements are due to come into effect next April. I hope that this will be seen as a sign of the extent to which we have their interests in mind. Obviously, given the time left before the end of the Session, I cannot offer the prospect of a debate next week.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point about the private Bill procedure, I congratulate him on having recognised so quickly after his appointment the importance of this complex topic. I do not pretend to be a master of the minutiae of the Joint Committee's report. This is a topic on which we clearly need to consult a wide range of

1165
interests as well as listening to the views expressed in the House. When I have done that, I hope to come forward with proposals that could commend themselves to the House. The matter deserves such serious attention. In the meantime, I hope that hon. Members will take my comments seriously and in good faith and will permit private business to proceed this evening and for the rest of the Session in a constructive and orderly fashion.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that I need not remind the House that there are two statements before the Standing Order No. 20 debate. Business questions should refer to the business for next week, not to more general topics.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many Conservative Members would make the request that has been made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the pensions of pre-1973 war widows? If this country can afford to pay off the national debt, does not my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we have a debt of honour that should be paid off to those widows?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take this fresh opportunity to emphasise the extent to which all hon. Members have deepest sympathy for war widows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do something."] That is why the Government have already taken certain steps and announced further steps which will take effect next April. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request for a debate at an early opportunity, but plainly it cannot take place next week.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House may be aware that last year his predecessor said that an Opposition Day given to the minority parties because there had not been time in the 1987–88 Session would be carried forward to the present Session. Unfortunately, there has been no time for it this Session. Will he give an undertaking that the matter has not been forgotten and that next Session, in addition to the three days allocated in the Standing Orders, the minority parties will be entitled to their remaining day?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the fact that it has not been possible to do more this Session. I cannot focus on the precise arithmetic for next Session, but I shall consider the point as carefully as possible.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: May I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about war widows? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that early-day motion 68 has now been signed by 328 hon. Members from all parties? Does he think that it is fair that the widow of a private killed in the second world war receives £2,946 a year, whereas the widow of a private killed today receives £6,491 a year? Does he accept that it is no good to continue to say that the Government have great sympathy for those people? We want some action and I am sure that my right hon. and
1166
learned Friend would meet the wishes of every hon. Member if he were to arrange a debate next week on this question.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already made clear our willingness to contemplate the possibility of a debate. It is fair to remind the House that the Government have made substantial improvements and extensions to the arrangements for war widows. Further changes are to take effect next April. I fully understand the force of my hon. Friend's point, but it is right to emphasise that our sympathy has been expressed in a practical way as far as possible.
Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Leader of the House accept that early-day motion 68, which stands in my name and that of 328 other hon. Members, and its two supporting amendments, represents the views of more than 75 per cent. of hon. Members? Feelings run extremely high. Will the Leader of the House assure us that if there is to be no substantive announcement in the Queen's Speech about paying this small amount of money to give equal treatment to all war widows, there will be a debate immediately following the debate on the Gracious Speech?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I emphasise again our understanding of the extent to which sympathy for war widows is widely shared throughout the House, and it is entirely natural that that should be so. If I have the figures correctly in mind, a change such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) would cost about £600 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] That is not a matter on which I am authorised to make a commitment from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. However, in relation to what I can do, I have said that I shall certainly see whether we can find an opportunity for a debate next Session. I understand the strength of feeling and I shall try to respond by offering the opportunity for a debate.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would look strange if the House seems to be taking no interest in the momentous events in eastern Europe? Will he find an early date for a debate on that subject and especially our relations with those countries?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance that my hon. and learned Friend attaches to events in eastern Europe, which are of momentous importance. He will have an opportunity to discuss that topic in one or other of the debates on the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it still too late to arrange for next week the long-delayed debate on parliamentary pensions, and when now will it take place? Is the Leader of the House aware of the importance of that debate to the widows of many of our former colleagues?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman in particular has an interest in that topic, which concerns hon. Members of all parties. I personally regretted very much the fact that we had to postpone the debate from today, but I thought that it was right to do so in the light of the decision announced by you, Mr. Speaker. I can see no prospect of having that debate next week, but I shall try to find an early opportunity for discussion of that much-postponed and important matter.
Mr. Michael Latham: As the usual awning will be erected outside the House of Lords next week under which dignitaries may queue for the Queen's Speech, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House of Lords that that awning will stay there permanently until the House of Lords agrees to a better system to prevent our constituents from having to queue in the rain to go round the line of route?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not entirely certain, after my limited tenure of this office, of my authority to make such a bold assertion to those who run another place. I will certainly look into the matter to see whether there is anything that I can sensibly do about it.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I am sure that the Leader of the House shares the general concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the death of Beverley Lewis, the deaf-blind and mentally handicapped woman. Does he agree that we need a public inquiry to find out what happened and so avoid further tragedies? May we please debate that next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman, as so often, raises a matter of importance. That is obviously a tragic case. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already called for full reports on the matter from the health and social services authorities. Those reports and the inquest findings will be examined carefully to discover whether they reveal gaps in the legislation or other arrangements that exist to deal with such cases.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Wednesday's debate on the European Community is an opportunity to look ahead and not simply to consider previous White Paper developments? Does he also agree that it can include the matters raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—developments in eastern Europe—and should above all emphasise the Government's enthusiasm for the European Community? In view of the doubts that have arisen yet again recently about the Government's attitude on a number of key aspects of the development of the European Community, should we not show once again that we are approaching the forthcoming Strasbourg EC summit with total enthusiasm for new developments?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that that debate will provide an opportunity for expressing those positive sentiments. Although the debate deals with the report relating to the Spanish presidency, hon. Members will want to refer to eastern Europe as well as to Community matters. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) participates, he will no doubt be able to contribute his own unique blend of positivism to the discussions.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House yet come to a decision about the letter that he received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland making statements to journalists before Northern Ireland questions? No doubt those statements were kept out of the way until Northern Ireland questions were over. Will the Leader of the House undertake as soon as possible to arrange for the Secretary of State for
1168
Northern Ireland to reply to and clarify the contradictions and confusions that have arisen from the statements made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland inside and outside the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether there will be an opportunity to make any such special arrangements, nor should there be any need to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already made the position very clear. There has been no change in Government policy. The overriding aim of all our policies in Northern Ireland is to bring terrorism to an end. The way forward to political stability must involve talks between the political parties and with the Government. However, those who support terrorism can play no part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it very clear that there is no question of Ministers having dealings with Sinn Fein as long as it supports terrorism, as it plainly continues to do.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is a matter of deep regret that the business of the House next week will not permit a debate on British Rail's proposal to construct a high-speed link through Kent? Is he aware that British Rail's decision last week to defer the presentation of its Bill for another year and not to consider any other route is a matter of great concern? Will he therefore arrange a debate on this vexed subject as soon as possible in the new Session?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's concern with this subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has welcomed the announcement of a joint venture between British Rail and Eurorail to design, finance and build the Channel tunnel rail link. It is for British Rail and Eurorail to judge how and when to seek legislative approval for their proposals and they have decided that it is wiser to introduce a Bill in November 1990 so that all the details of the route through London can be finalised. I shall bring my hon. Friend's understandable concern with this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. James Lamond: What about the deputy Prime Minister stepping in next week, perhaps at Question Time, to give the Prime Minister a bit of a break? What with rushing all over the place saving the world and so on, she has become so muddled that in a letter to me on Monday she referred——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to know that there is an important debate after this. I did ask for questions to be confined to next week's business.
Mr. Lamond: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the deputy Prime Minister would step in next week in place of the Prime Minister. She is so muddled that she has forgotten which Ministers she moved in the reshuffles beause they are so frequent. It is misleading for hon. Members to receive letters asking them to get in touch with Ministers who have not been in the office concerned for more than three months.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman may understand his point, but I do not think that the rest of the House does.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that more hon. Members are now rising. I do not like to curtail business questions but today I shall allow them to continue for a further five minutes. We must then move on for the reasons that I have already stated.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that last year there were just under 8,000 serious accidents in schools of which seven were fatal, and that schools do not have the protection of the first aid provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 174 standing in my name and signed by no fewer than 323 other right hon. and hon. Members?
[That this House applauds the Approved Code of Practice which followed the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974) and which requires that, even in low hazard industries, every employer of more than 150 people should ensure the on site availability of a qualified first alder; believes the same requirement should apply to children in schools; further recognises the value of teaching first or emergency aid in schools; and applauds the initiative of the St. John Ambulance in issuing its publication Emergency Aid in Schools, which, accompanied by a video, shows how children can be taught a basic course between the ages of six and twelve years so that they are competent in assessing emergency situations, restarting breathing and circulation, dealing with bleeding, shock and unconsciousness especially resulting from drug or solvent abuse and burns and scalds an so qualifying for the St. John Ambulance Three Cross Emergency Aid Award.]
It calls for mandatory first aid protection to be offered to schools similar to that offered to even low-hazard industries. Please may we have a debate on the issue, which affects almost every household in the land——
Mr. Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Browne:—at some time, and is strongly supported by more than half the Back Bench Members?
Mr. Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I know what the point of order is likely to be, but put it briefly please.
Mr. Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I signed the early-day motion and support the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), but I do not see how the point that he is making has any relevance to next week's business. I expect fairness.
Mr. Speaker: Nor did points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I agree.
Mr. Dave Nellist: May I ak the Leader of the House the question that I put to him last week? Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come back to the House and make a further statement about his abdication of the Government's golden share in Jaguar and its consequences for thousands of my constituents and other denationalised industries, such as British Steel, and the possible—I stress "possible"—denationalisation of electricity and water? Is it not a fact that all creditor companies that want to take
1170
over privatised concerns regard those pieces of paper called golden shares as totally worthless? Why does not the Secretary of State come to explain that to the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I told the hon. Member last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made a statement to the House about the Government's special share in Jaguar. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise wider aspects of that decision, he will have an opportunity to do so in debates after the House resumes, and on other occasions when the Secretary of State is here.
Mr. Richard Holt: May I also refer to my question on last week's business statement when I asked my right hon. and learned Friend whether we could have a debate on toxic waste? He said that no one is interested in arranging such a debate. Is he speaking for the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench? If not, can we have a change of heart as it is an important subject which should be debated in the House in conjunction with the Select Committee report?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot imagine that I put the matter as brutally as my hon. Friend recollects. It is a topic which clearly deserves consideration. In due course we will have to see whether either side of the House brings it forward for debate.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a further statement on Jaguar next week in the light of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by Sir John Egan in which he stated that Jaguar asked the Secretary of State not to waive the golden share? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend to say what discussions he has had with Ford in relation to research and development, jobs, the buying of British components and the location of Jaguar and all future models in the west midlands?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter of Jaguar is one for the shareholders. Competition policy in general, including implications for relations with Ford, is something which my right hon. Friend will consider on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. I should have thought that any evidence given to the Select Committee would be considered by that Committee rather than by my right hon. Friend in mid-flight.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for a debate or statement next week on the future of concessionary travel and bus passes for the elderly, the disabled and the blind after the expiration of the present scheme early next year? Is he aware that the London boroughs have not got their act together on this? The people concerned are worried that they might lose their passes—they must not.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I cannot promise a debate, I am sure that the fact that my hon. Friend has raised it so clearly in the House today will be considered by the authorities in London as they decide what to do next.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have been unable to call the remaining hon. Members, but I must now call the statement from the Secretary of State for Energy.

Electricity Privatisation
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation and nuclear power.
The Government remain determined to complete electricity privatisation, with all the benefits it will bring, in the lifetime of this Parliament. The preparations for the new system have brought issues into the open. In particular, attention has been focused on the costs of nuclear power. The Government have for some time recognised that our nuclear power is more costly than power from fossil-fuelled generating stations. [Interruption.] Nevertheless, it has an important role to play in providing diversity of supply and in protecting the environment.
On 24 July, my predecessor told the House that the improved transparency brought about by the preparations for privatisation had revealed substantially increased costs, relating primarily to the Magnox stations. This led us to the conclusion that the Magnox stations should remain under Government control.
Contract negotiations for nuclear stations have moved on since July. Discussions have taken place about financing new nuclear power stations. The Government told the House on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill that the arrangements for nuclear power would strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the taxpayer, the electricity consumer and the shareholder. In the event, unprecedented guarantees were being sought. I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way. [Interruption.]
Given those factors, the Government have concluded that the English advanced gas-cooled reactors and Sizewell B should remain, along with the Magnox stations, in a Government-owned company. This company will inherit all the nuclear-related assets, expertise and support currently residing in the Central Electricity Generating Board, including the CEGB's rightly praised expertise in health and safety. Safety will continue to be paramount. Standards will be maintained at their present high level.
I am happy to announce that Mr. John Collier, chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, has agreed to become chairman of the new nuclear company. He brings to this vital task a wealth of experience in the nuclear industry and well-recognised leadership qualities.
The company will be a substantial one, with a positive cash flow. [Interruption.] It could provide between 15 and 20 per cent. of electricity supplied in the mid 1990s. The company will retain the ability to construct and operate new nuclear capacity. It will not own any fossil-generating stations. Thus the prospects for fossil generators will remain essentially unaffected.
The CEGB's other power stations will be allocated between National Power and PowerGen as previously announced. Both companies will be major fossil-based generators, and will be privatised in this Parliament, as will the distribution companies.
We want to preserve the strategic role of nuclear power in order to maintain adequate diversity of electricity supply, avoid too great a reliance on a single fuel and obtain the benefits of this environmentally clean source of
1172
energy. As a result of privatisation, there will be competition in the electricity market, which is likely, of itself, to lead to greater fuel diversity. There are already a number of proposals for new generating projects based on combined cycle gas turbine technology, which of course leads to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Oil-fired stations have a role to play.
In the light of their performance to date, it should be possible, subject to the views of the nuclear installations inspectorate, for the lifetime of at least some of the Magnox stations to be extended. The Government will make available funds for any justifiable investment for this purpose.
In view of the factors which I have mentioned bearing on diversity, some of which relate to fossil fuels, the non-fossil obligation will be set at a level which can be satisfied without the construction of new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] The Government attach the highest importance to the successful completion and operation of Sizewell B in order to maintain the PWR option in the United Kingdom.
I am asking the CEGB to consider urgently what action it wishes to take with respect to its applications for my consent to build PWR stations at Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C. The Government's statement is being communicated to the Hinkley Point C inquiry.
There will continue to be the opportunity, as has been made clear previously, for other non-fossil generation to contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation. In particular, we will maintain the arrangements for the 600 MW special tranche for renewables announced by my right hon. Friend during the summer.
My proposals will not have an impact on the electricity industry's carbon dioxide emissions until about the turn of the century. By then we fully expect gas-fired stations to be playing an important role in electricity generation, and by maintaining the nuclear option we are creating the opportunity for a longer-term contribution from economic nuclear power.
The distribution companies need to be clear what their obligations will be for a reasonable period ahead. The Government will wish to review the prospects for nuclear power as the Sizewell B project nears completion in 1994.
The nuclear company has a long future as a supplier of nuclear-generated electricity. This should provide continuing attractive employment opportunities. The pension rights of existing staff will be protected, as will their ability to benefit from the sale of the rest of the industry. I shall be discussing the implementation of these proposals with all parties concerned, including the trade unions.
The price of the nuclear company's electricity will be set at a level consistent with its earning a return appropriate to public sector bodies. Since the price of nuclear electricity is likely still to be somewhat higher than that of fossil-fuelled electricity, the fossil fuel levy will be used to share the additional cost over all electricity suppliers.
This decision will help preserve diversity of supply and maintain the nuclear option. We will complete electricity privatisation in the lifetime of this Parliament, and in so doing will safeguard the interests of consumers, taxpayers and shareholders alike.
Mr. Frank Dobson: That really was one of the most extraordinary statements that

1173
the House has ever heard. We have been told that the Thatcher Cabinet has declared the privatised electricity supply industry a nuclear-free zone.
What a shambles the Government are making of the electricity industry. Against the advice of the Labour party and of many other knowledgeable people, including the members of the Select Committee on Energy, the Government insisted that nuclear power stations should be privatised. In the words of the then Secretary of State for Energy in April this year, private ownership of nuclear stations would get them away from political influence and make them better managed, better off and more accountable. Does his successor acknowledge now that those words, the ritual Tory incantation about privatisation, have proved false and misleading?
Today's announcement confirms what we and the Energy Select Committee said: the nuclear power stations have proved unsaleable. This madcap scheme has been stopped in its tracks by the financial facts of life. The Tories' friends in the City would not buy nuclear power stations at any price. The private sector wants to take over only the fossil fuel assets and the Government expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for the liabilities—in this case, irradiated liabilities.
This statement leaves the Government's plans in tatters. They promised their friends that they would create competing private generating companies, yet this latest plan will establish a separate, publicly owned nuclear monopoly from which the Government's friends, running the privatised distribution companies, will be obliged by law to buy electricity.
So much for competition. We know that whoever decides the price of this nuclear power in future, it will certainly not be the customers who, we were told, would be of paramount importance.
The Government's cockeyed arrangements for conventional electricity generation, with one large and one small company, are also in tatters. The size of the large company was justified, they said, by its need for more than its fair share of conventional power stations to compensate it for taking on the responsibility for nuclear power stations. Without the nuclear element, the imbalance between the two companies is ludicrous and unjustifiable; one will have more than 50 per cent. of the capacity, the other less than 30 per cent. Unless the Government change that imbalance, the customers will suffer.
The Government must now reconsider these ramshackle arrangements, which have never been argued before this House. It is no good the Government or their officials or press officers blaming the advice that they received from officials or from people in the electricity industry. As the Prime Minister is fond of saying, advisers advise, Ministers decide. In this case, the Ministers had lots of advice about the costs and problems of nuclear power; the trouble was that they took the bad advice and ignored the good—entirely typically for this incompetent Government.
Despite the obfuscation in the statement, it also spells out——
Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not a question be asked rather than a response statement made?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as a former shadow Leader of the House, will appreciate the pressure on business today.
Mr. Dobson: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite the obfuscations, this statement spells the end of the Government's commitment to an expanded programme of nuclear power? As late as 27 September, the right hon. Gentleman said that the stations he talked about today would be transferred to the private sector, reflecting, he said, the British Government's continuing faith in the future of nuclear power. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his statement today shows that they no longer have faith in nuclear power?
This is a humiliating climbdown by the Government, who have treated the industry and its staff as a plaything. The problem results from the Prime Minister's twin obsession with privatisation and nuclear power, and from having a Cabinet full of Ministers who are unwilling to tell her the truth. The House and the country will want the truth and we shall want a debate, because the people of this country and the people who work in the industry are entitled to know about their future. And this House is entitled to be consulted about the whole future of the electricity industry, which is now a shambles.
Mr. Wakeham: I think that the first thing that I should do is to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as a shadow spokesman for energy. I know that he long wanted what he thought was a proper Department to shadow. I hope that I have at least given him something to get his teeth into to start off with. I am sorry that he has made such a mess of his first opportunity. I cannot decide whether he supports or opposes what the Government have announced. "Shambles" is a word that springs freely from his lips. I heard it first when I was in the bath this morning and I heard it again this afternoon. It is utter nonsense.
The decision will help to ensure that the privatisation of the rest of the industry will take place as I have pledged within the lifetime of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government are doing this at any price. If he had listened carefully to my statement he would have heard me say just the opposite. I said that we were not prepared to pay the risk premium which the banks and National Power were demanding. The rest of the industry will be privatised, and we are determined to get full value for the taxpayer in the proceeds.
The proposals that we have put forward will ensure fair competition between generators, whatever their size. We have no intention of changing the allocation of assets at this stage because we do not believe that to do so would be in the interests of the consumer or of the privatisation. But the system of competition that we shall produce will be fair for generators—National Power, PowerGen and the substantial new independent generators which we expect quickly to come into the market. Far from announcing the death knell of nuclear power, the proposal that I have put before the House today is the best way of ensuring a long-term future for nuclear power in this country.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that I do not need to repeat what I have already said about the emergency debate. Bearing in mind that there will be other

1175
opportunities to ask questions, I will allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.30, when we will move on to the next statement.
Mr. David Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has taken a courageous and sensible decision today, which will pave the way for the successful privatisation of the electricity industry—I hope without any further difficulties, despite the fact that Opposition Members have been opposed to the plan all along? Does he accept that questions now arise about the structure of the generating industry as it stands? Does he recall that the structure was designed, on advice, to carry some of the risks of the nuclear programme? If he is not to do so now, at least in future will he ensure that the Government will not stand in the way of some evolution and change in the structure of the generating industry, to get away from the pattern of one very large generating firm and one very small generating firm, which may not be ideal for the future?
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, my right hon. Friend, with his experience in these matters, must be listened to carefully by all hon. Members. I have said that I have no proposals to change the basis of the allocation between National Power and PowerGen, but I shall want to see that a proper competitive market is developing, not just because of the position of those two companies but because an essential part of the privatisation is the development of a substantial new element of independent generators, who must see that they are competing in a fair marketplace.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in his statement, he has simultaneously destroyed the case for privatisation, undermined the case for nuclear power by admitting that it is much more expensive, and retrospectively destroyed the Government's war against the mining industry, which he today admitted can generate electricity much more cheaply than the nuclear industry can?
Is he aware also of the unspoken part of his statement, which is that, if cheap coal can be imported from South Africa through the proposed new Humberside ports, the miners can be pressed yet again from another source? That explains the Prime Minister's refusal to join other Commonwealth leaders in taking sanctions against South Africa.
Mr. Wakeham: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. It was he, after all, who announced to the House that the option for PWRs was to be established in the United Kingdom. He said:
"Nor does anybody doubt that there will be a nuclear component in our future energy policy and that it will probably be a growing one".—[Official Report, 2 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 973.]
It is inevitable that I would have that to hand in case the right hon. Gentleman said anything.
There is a more important question, and I hope that those who are concerned about the future of the coal industry, as I am, will recognise that British Coal has an important future as a supplier of fuel, and will continue to have it. It must recognise, however, that the competition that it has to face is not primarily from imported coal. Instead, it is from natural gas and oil, and it must be a competitive coal industry.
Mr. Michael Jack: In thanking my right hon. Friend for clarifying the Government's commitment to the nuclear industry, may I ask him on behalf of the 3,000 nuclear workers in my constituency when the plans for the future of the Magnox stations will be available, when the details of the remedial works on the AGRs will be available, and when he will be able to advise British Nuclear Fuels plc about the future of its £123 million investment in the PWR fuel plant?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. There is nothing that I can say today particularly, other than that I recognise the concerns and that we shall make whatever statements are possible as soon as they are possible.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that he has much for which to thank his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson)? In the circumstances, he has at least had the sense and wisdom to accept the advice that his predecessor was too arrogant to listen to during the proceedings in Committee on the privatisation Bill.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he recognises that the flotation is now in such a shambles that it must be delayed until clarity emerges? Will he say what obligations have been made to Westinghouse for the PWRs that are now being cancelled, and the cost that will fall on the taxpayer as a result of that decision? Will he accept that there is a real risk that state-subsidised nuclear power will dump privately generated alternative forms of electricity, and that he needs to allay that fear? Finally, will he acknowledge that this is the beginning of the end of nuclear power?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I would not acknowledge that for one minute. I believe that this is the best policy for the future of nuclear power in the situation in which we find ourselves. The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he casts doubt on whether the privatisation of the electricity supply industry can be achieved during this Parliament. I believe that this will substantially alleviate the difficulties that we have to overcome to achieve that object.
Mr. Bruce: Will it help?
Mr. Wakeham: There is no question but that this policy will make the job easier. There are still other matters to be dealt with.
As for the orders that have or have not been placed in accordance with the CEGB's proposals, they are a matter primarily for the board. I have no knowledge of any decisions of that sort.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Since, in my humble judgment, it will be perceived within the decade on both sides of the House that the future of the country depends on its success, may I first wish the new nuclear company and John Collier every success? May I welcome he Government's decision to maintain the nuclear option, as all evidence reaching us about the greenhouse effect suggests that there is no other realistic option?
Will the price be essentially determined by fossil fuel generators, even when their prices rise, as they are bound to do, when vast additional costs are imposed on fossil fuel stations to meet clean air conditions? Finally, does the revision of decommissioning costs—which were elaborately discussed in Lord Marshall's paper on 6 December, and

1177
which amount to between £8 billion and £12 billion—lie at the heart of my right hon. Friend's decision to revise the plan?
Mr. Wakeham: The position is considerably more complicated than can be dealt with in a short parliamentary answer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the nuclear industry and his deep interest in it. We have not yet determined the level of the fossil fuel levy, but all these decisions will tend to make it lower rather than higher, certainly in the short term. Decommissioning will be dealt with in the state-owned nuclear company, and therefore will not present the difficulties we have had previously in trying to negotiate arrangements between the private and the public sectors.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the Government had not refused to listen to the advice of the Energy Select Committee, he would not be at the Dispatch Box making this statement today? Having taken such a major decision, he must surely be in a position to tell the House what will be the cost to the public purse of generating 20 per cent. of electricity by nuclear power. If he cannot tell the House that cost, does that mean that, like everyone else, he does not know and has been scratching in the dark, and that, for purely dogmatic reasons, he is pushing forward with nuclear power whatever the cost?
Mr. Wakeham: No. Had the hon. Gentleman listened, he would have heard me tell the House that the state-owned nuclear power company's successor for the nuclear element of the CEGB will be a cash-positive company and will earn profits, not make losses. As both sides of the House must recognise, we have made a substantial investment in nuclear power. It is producing returns, and it should finance the cost of the Sizewell B project, with which we wish to continue because we believe it to be an essential part of maintaining the nuclear option.
Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has made the correct decision, given the emergence of hitherto concealed information about the true costs of nuclear power? Does he share my concern that, for many years, including those when the Labour Government were in office, figures came out of the electricity supply industry that did not bear a true relationship to the costs of nuclear power? Therefore, will he pay careful regard to any figures that the CEGB is now producing on future costs?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. One of the difficulties with which we have had to deal has been that the costs of nuclear power remained hidden throughout nationalisation, and it was only the preparations for privatisation that brought them to light. I am not criticising anyone in particular for that, but it was only on 11 October that I finally managed to obtain the figures that I needed to make this decision, having pressed very hard for them from the moment that I took up office.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the decision to establish a new national nuclear corporation, and I join the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) in wishing it success. Nevertheless, has not the right hon. Gentleman, with a number of decisions, placed
1178
a huge question mark over the future of the industry, which I have always supported—first, by running down the fast breeder reactor programme and secondly, by in effect curtailing the development of new nuclear stations, which some Labour Members want to be constructed? What is the future of the nuclear industry under this Government?
Mr. Wakeham: The future of Britain's nuclear industry will be decided finally in 1994. I hope that by that time it will be possible to produce nuclear energy economically.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State enumerate many of the arguments that I put forward in Committee and on Report, is it not a great pity that the Government did not accept my amendments? But having said that, and looking further into the future, when the price of coal rights itself and the price of oil goes up in about five or six years, will not nuclear energy come into its own and blossom forth in the economy?
Mr. Wakeham: I know my hon. Friend's point of view, and I do not deny him his moment of self-congratulation, particularly after his recent stunning victory in the country. He is entitled to be proud of himself. I hope that the future will be what we would wish it to be—that after we review these matters in 1994 we will be able and will want to develop our nuclear industry to produce economic nuclear power.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, when the Bill was introduced by the previous Secretary of State for Energy, it included many items that will not now be acted upon? Is it not arguable that the Act is now full of hybridity in the sense that the nuclear element has now been taken out of it? Should not that matter be examined, since Parliament has been cheated? Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account the fact that, now that we have reached a watershed in nuclear power and other forms of energy, it would make a lot of sense to stop the pit closure programme, to say that the CEGB's coal allocation should be increased from 60 million tonnes to 75 million tonnes, that coal imports should be stopped and that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill should be dropped?
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that, as Leader of the House, I made such an impression on the hon. Gentleman that he does not realise that I have given up that job. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The steps that we are taking conform completely with the Electricity Act 1989, so no further legislation is required.
Mr. Peter Rost: Is not the most important and painful lesson to be learned from my right hon. Friend's sensible and realistic decision the fact that nuclear electricity is uneconomic and produced at a high cost only in Britain, not in those many other countries that have done the job sensibly, and mostly in the private sector?
Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely; my hon. Friend is right. There are many examples of the economic production of nuclear power in many other countries.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Can the Secretary of State clarify one matter for the House? Since the Government will not now underwrite the cost of the nuclear sector into the future, will the PWR stations at

1179
Hinkley, Wylfa and Sizewell C go ahead, and does his announcement on the extension of the life of the Magnox stations have an implication for Wylfa A? It is important for my constituents and the House to know the answer.
Mr. Wakeham: We are looking at all the Magnox stations with the experts concerned and the nuclear installations inspectorate, and decisions will be made as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman's other question is extremely important, and I hope that he will understand the answer. Under the law as it stands, I have a quasi-judicial role in determining any matters put to me by the inspector at any of the inquiries. It is for the CEGB to make an application, and for inspectors to recommend. I should be doing the hon. Gentleman's constituents a disservice if I expressed any opinions whatever.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members welcome his decision? It is the right decision, and always was.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new nuclear company will be a centre of nuclear excellence, providing the public with confidence in the nuclear industry and ensuring that the industry has a future? Does he also agree that, without the rigours of privatisation, the true cost of nuclear electricity might never have come to light?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to pay tribute to the dedicated staff who have been involved in the nuclear power industry in this country. We are very fortunate that Mr. Collier has agreed to take over the job of chairman of the new company, and I believe that it has a very good future.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. When we debate this matter subsequently, I shall seek to give priority to hon. Members whom I have not been able to call today.

Electricity Privatisation (Scotland)
4.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of the electricity supply industry in Scotland.
The House heard earlier today a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, describing the continuing uncertainties over the costs and longer-term liabilities associated with nuclear power. Those uncertainties are also relevant to the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland. I have therefore reassessed my plans for the restructuring and privatisation of the Scottish industry, and wish to inform the House of my conclusions.
Hon. Members will be aware of the important role that nuclear power plays in the Scottish system. The AGR stations at Torness and Hunterston B represent 25 per cent. of the generating capacity held by the Scottish boards. Hunterston A Magnox station is now approaching the end of its useful life, and is scheduled for closure in the near future. The SSEB's nuclear stations have an excellent record of safe performance, and I commend the management and staff of the board for their achievement in constructing and operating them.
Despite that successful operational performance, the Government have had to examine carefully the future cost uncertainties associated with the nuclear operations in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. After close consultation with the industry and our financial advisers, we have concluded that the full flotation could not be successfully achieved without wide-ranging and unequivocal indemnity from Government for future cost escalations. We do not consider that it would he in the public interest to confer such indemnity, and have therefore decided that the nuclear enterprise in Scotland should remain in the public sector.
We had already proposed that the nuclear assets should be held by a separate company, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. That company will now remain publicly owned, and will be responsible for the continued safe operation of the stations. The staff now engaged in nuclear matters will be employed by the new company, thus ensuring the retention of the essential expertise required to maintain safe and efficient operation of the stations for the continuing benefit of Scottish consumers. The company will enter into contracts for the sale of its output with the Scottish supply companies, Scottish Power and Hydro Electric. It is certainly our intention that Scottish consumers should continue to benefit from the large investment in nuclear capacity.
The industry north and south of the border has been investigating the economic case for upgrading the capacity of the interconnector between Scotland and England. There is a further opportunity, which we must now explore, to export Scottish output to England and Wales, thus contributing to the diversity of supplies there, and maximising the overall economic use of these major assets to the benefit of all concerned.
The greater proportion of the Scottish industry will be privatised.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The showrooms. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is very short this afternoon.
Mr. Rifkind: This will consist of two highly successful transmissesion, distribution and supply businesses with strong local identities and a modern and diverse portfolio of generating stations. They will own around 75 per cent. of generating capacity and employ 14,000 of the total 16,000 staff in the Scottish electricity industry. It is our intention to prepare these companies for privatisation within the current Parliament, and my Department is assessing with our professional advisers and in consultation with the industry the detailed implications of the Government's decision to withhold the nuclear assets from the sale.
There will need to be detailed discussions with regard to the proper relationship of the nuclear company with the other parts of the industry. These will be made easier by our previous decision to place all of the nuclear assets in a separate company. I shall wish to ensure that the revised arrangements have no adverse effects on the economy and efficiency of operation of the industry in Scotland and that there will be no adverse implications for tariffs as a result of these changes.
It will be central to our plans to safeguard the position of the existing staff engaged in the nuclear company, and in particular their pension rights will be protected. The Government will also ensure that these staff will be able to benefit from the flotation of the other parts of the industry. We shall be discussing the detailed implementation of these proposals with the management and the trade unions. The Scottish nuclear company can look forward to a successful and productive future working in close co-operation with the other electricity companies in Scotland.
I believe that a proper and carefully balanced mixture of private and public ownership—[Laughter.]— will achieve our objectives and be of real benefit to electricity consumers. The nuclear enterprise will continue to play an important role in delivering a safe, reliable and competitively priced supply of electricity to the people of Scotland for many years to come. The two private sector companies, Scottish Power and Hydro Electric, will flourish in the private sector and deliver an improved service to their customers in the new environment.
Mr. Donald Dewar: This must be one of the most humiliating statements that the House has heard from a Scottish Office Minister for a very long time. The Secretary of State was extremely wise to try to turn it into something of a joke. The Government's central strategy for the electricity industry lies in ruins. The Secretary of State's attempt to present this shambles as a minor policy adjustment is as pathetic as it is unconvincing. In fairness to him, he seemed to be enjoying the joke when he argued that the AGRs represent only 25 per cent. of generating capacity. Is he afraid to face the fact that 60 per cent. of all electricity sold in Scotland comes from nuclear capacity and that for the South of Scotland electricity board it represents, in its latest available balance sheet, at £2·048 billion, some 80 per cent. of assets? What we have now is a rickety structure cobbled together in panic in a futile attempt to save face. Is not the truth that the nuclear arithmetic has gone horribly wrong and that the heart has been ripped out of the whole scheme?
How can the Minister have the brass neck to claim that he believes in
1182
"a proper and carefully balanced mixture of private and public ownership"
when he has spent the last year denying in the strongest possible terms that there is any place for the nuclear industry in the public sector? Does he remember writing to me less than a year ago to say that
"There are no grounds for suggesting that the successful privatisation of the industry will be jeopardised by risks associated with the nuclear operating costs"?
Does he remember that in this House last April his Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), expressed his unshakable confidence
"that the Scottish industry, including its substantial nuclear assets, can look forward to a bright commercial future."—[Official Report, 5 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 236.]
I can only say to him that what he has announced today is neither proper nor balanced. It is a mixture, which many people would describe as a dog's breakfast.
Why has the Minister remained in such a state of ignorance, despite the persistent and wholly justified attack by the Opposition on these matters and the specific warning from the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board in December 1988 that under the then current arrangements his company would be unsaleable? Why has it taken so long to discover—or, even more damaging, to admit—the painful truth? It is a tale of incompetence and dither.
How will Scottish Nuclear price the power that it produces? Is that possible at all if it is impossible to put a figure on the ever-escalating costs of decommissioning and reprocessing? The Secretary of State for Energy talked about the price being consistent with earning a return appropriate to public sector bodies. How does the Secretary of State intend to build into that pricing structure the end costs of decommissioning? Does the Secretary of State now agree with the Department of Energy that, if that is done, the true cost of nuclear power is at least twice that of conventionally produced power?
Is it not true that the whole exercise is designed so that the taxpayer will be left with the liabilities and the investors with the profits? Is the Secretary of State confident that Scottish Power and Hydro Electric can stand on their own? Will they survive as independent entities without the nuclear generating capacity, which the chairman of the SSEB recently described as the mainstay of his board's finances?
What has happened to the Minister's proud boast that the strength of his specially tailored Scottish solution was the merging of generation and distribution? Are not those claims now a joke? Does not today's statement show the folly of Ministers meddling in a complex industry that they clearly do not understand? If the so-called sale excludes the core of the industry, would it not be more honest, and more in the public interest, for the Secretary of State to admit his error and to abandon the whole misconceived exercise?
Mr. Rilkind: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have studied the industry terribly carefully. At the moment, approximately 16,000 people are employed in the Scottish electricity industry. Only 1,800 of them—about 10 per cent.—are employed in the nuclear industry. Some 90 per cent. of employees and 75 per cent. of the industry's capacity will go into the private sector. All the hon. Gentleman can take refuge in is the fact that the historic book value shows—not surprisingly, as Torness has only

1183
recently been completed—that a high proportion of assets on a historic book basis are of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about people and the capacity to generate power, I should have thought that he would attach more importance to the fact that 75 per cent. of capacity and 90 per cent. of the employees will go into the privatised industry. Frankly, that accounts for more than the core of the industry.
The hon. Gentleman asks why that has come about, and why the Government did not have this view some months ago. One of the consequences of privatisation, whether in the electricity industry or in any other industry, is that it is only when one is contemplating privatisation that the industry and the public address themselves to the costs incurred by nationalised industries. Electricity privatisation revealed the true cost of many of the hidden subsidies and unknown factors that had always been there.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the views of the SSEB and the Scottish electricity industry. I remind him that the SSEB and the Hydro Board were fully behind the Government's proposals to privatise the whole industry. In the light of the information that is now available, they have said that they believe that the Government are right to go ahead in the way in which we are now proposing.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the way in which pricing would be determined. I said in my statement that today's announcement would have no adverse consequences for tariffs. The Government are committed to the principle of tariff continuity. [Interruption.] When the contracts between Scottish Nuclear and the two private sector companies are entered into, the pricing which will be agreed will enable the tariff consequences to be the same as they were under our original proposals.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow questions on the statement to run until 5 o'clock and then I shall call the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to move his motion. I intend to give precedence to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies because this statement refers to Scotland.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Whereas the Secretary of State for Energy has the excuse that he has been dropped into this midden, the Secretary of State for Scotland has no such alibi. He has been responsible for this tacky business right through from beginning to end.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his announcement today means that the two power stations in my constituency, Cockenzie and Torness, will be under totally separate ownership and management? One will be in the public sector, the other in the private sector. I give a guarded welcome to the fact that the climbdown means that Torness will be kept under public control.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what he will do to restore coal production capacity to meet future needs in Scotland? Will he comment on the report that failure to recommission refuelling machinery at Torness may lead to the two reactors there being shut down throughout most of this winter?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It was always intended that Torness would be under Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and Cockenzie under Scottish Power. I am happy to confirm that.
1184
In my statement, I gave details of the latest situation and its implications for coal. It has long been understood that the best prospects for coal depend on the opportunities that the Scottish industry finds to export surplus capacity. I said that the cumulative effect of what has been announced by the Government underlines the need to upgrade the interconnector, the purpose of which is to maximise the export of surplus Scottish electricity. Today's announcement is helpful to the Scottish coal industry's prospects.
In view of the enormously complex arrangements necessary for the safe handling of fuel in nuclear power stations, it is essential to ensure that every aspect of its operation is fully tested during the commissioning process at Torness. I understand that full commissioning of the fuel route is expected to take place in time to allow refuelling to occur in January, subject to all the necessary steps being completed to allow safe, reliable operation of the plant.
Sir Hector Monro: For clarification's sake, would my right hon. and learned Friend say what will be the status of Chapelcross nuclear power station, which is in my constituency? It is owned by British Nuclear Fuels, but it has to sell power to Scotland or to England. Is my right hon. and learned Friend certain that that condition will be retained, in the interests of the 650 employees there? Subject to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive, will Chapelcross have a life of at least 10 more years?
Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that today's announcement has no implications for Chapelcross. I recall that it has successfully agreed a contract which enables it to export some electricity south of the border.
Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister should have ended his statement by saying, "Three cheers for the mixed economy." Does he agree that everything he has said this afternoon has vindicated our repeated assertions that privatisation of the electricity industry is unworkable in Scotland, and that the Government's pretence of cheap nuclear power is in tatters? Can he say who will pay for the upgrading of the interconnector between Scotland and England? If those boards are to be privatised, when will flotation take place?
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is another shambles created by the Government and that the whole idea should be scrapped forthwith?
Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to confirm that the flotation will still take place in this Parliament. We have no reason to review its timing. It has always been intended that the upgrading of the interconnector would be the responsibility of the relevant companies north and south of the border. It is a commercial arrangement whereby they will sell surplus capacity to distribution companies in England, so the financing arrangements will not be affected by today's announcement.
Mr Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on reaching what must have been a tricky and difficult decision. Does he agree that his statement clearly reveals how much England and Scotland are interrelated in energy matters and that one cannot consider them in isolation? The interconnector is a vital and important part of the entire operation, enabling Scotland to continue to sell its produce to

1185
consumers in England. One of the most important factors in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement is that a substantial part of the Scottish electricity generating industry is being taken out of the public sector borrowing requirement. Those of us in the hydro areas will welcome that because the hydro company will be very viable and profitable.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right about the hydro company and Scottish Power being extremely profitable and viable companies. As for the interconnector, my right hon. Friend's announcement about the future of the PWR programme south of the border enhances the prospects for successful exports of surplus electricity from the Scottish electricity industry, and we shall need to address that.
Mr. David Lambie: May I remind the Minister that, although the Government intend to privatise the water industry in England and Wales, they are not doing the same in Scotland? Given his announcement today that more than 60 per cent. of the sales of electricity in Scotland will be from plants remaining within the public sector, is it not time that the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke up for Scotland and stated that a public SSEB should remain and should compete on favourable terms with a private industry in England and Wales?
Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid—no, I am not afraid, I am delighted—that the hon. Gentleman's views are not the views of the Scottish electricity industry. The SSEB is looking forward to privatisation and has been encouraging the Government to bring it forward as quickly as possible.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State accept that many of us never cease to be amazed by his chameleon-like qualities as he moves from one policy change to another? In that context, can he advise us what has happened since his statement to the Select Committee that he regarded nuclear energy as likely to be much cheaper than any fossil-fuel-generated energy and dismissed any questions about the high costs of decommissioning and reprocessing? What has happened in the intervening months to make him change his mind? In regard to the interconnector, can he tell us exactly what proportion of the investment will be paid for by Scottish consumers?
Mr. Rifkind: On the last point, I cannot inform the hon. Lady as that will be a matter to be discussed between the various companies north and south of the border. As for the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, the question does not concern the precise level of costs, but the uncertainty of not knowing what the costs of decommissioning will be, given that decommissioning may not take place for many years to come, although clearly an investor in the industry would need to take that into account. That is why the industry sought a total indemnity on these matters and the Government took the view that that would not be responsible or in the interests of the taxpayer.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his announcement and the announcement by the Secretary of State for Energy today spell disaster for Dounreay and the jobs there? Is it not correct that now that we appear to have decided not to
1186
proceed with pressurised water reactors and we have already decided to cut back on the fast breeder programme there will be no research work available at Dounreay, Winfrith in my constituency or Harwell? Will he give an assurance that those matters had been considered before today's statements were made?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that there will be consequences at Dounreay to which my hon. Friend refers. The research in which the staff at Dounreay are involved relates to matters other than the PWR programme south of the border or the public or private ownership of the electricity industry. Of course, Dounreay has particular problems and difficulties which are known to the House, but I do not believe that they have been increased as a result of today's announcements.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not misleading for the Secretary of State to continue to insist that the South of Scotland electricity board favours privatisation when he knows that at least 90 per cent. of the work force and the management are totally opposed to it? Given that it must throw current plans into total disarray, is it not irresponsible to insist on suggesting that the industry should be privatised before the next election?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept for a moment the hon. Gentleman's premise. When the Government originally announced that Hunterston A, the Magnox station, would not be privatised, the staff were anxious to be assured that they would have the same opportunities to take part in the flotation as staff elsewhere in the industry. That flies in the face of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an admirer of the technical achievements of the SSEB, referring to paragraph 4 of the statement, may I ask what figure the financial advisers have given to the Secretary of State's wide-ranging and unequivocal indemnity? People who talk about a wide-ranging indemnity must have a figure in their brief or it is meaningless.
Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, it is precisely because that figure could not be identified—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] We are talking about potential decommissioning costs which may not be incurred for 100 years. Precisely because such a figure could not be identified a total indemnity was requested from Government irrespective of what the figure might turn out to be. Neither the financial advisers nor anyone else has sought to put a figure on that sum. Precisely because of that uncertainty an unqualified indemnity was requested and for the same reason it would be improper to give one.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State will be aware that the reorganisation of the hydro-electric board has reached a very advanced stage in the proposed merger between the Dundee and South Caledonian divisions. That reorganisation is being carried out on the assumption that the hydro-electricty will have a nuclear component. Can the Secretary of State make any assessment of the likely impact of his announcement this afternoon on that reorganisation and the level of employment within Hydro Electric?
Mr. Rifkind: I have had one discussion with the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board who does not appear to believe that any significant problems will arise as a result of today's announcement. That is a matter of some

1187
reassurance. Obviously we will keep an eye on that matter to see whether it needs to be revised, but that was the view expressed at this stage.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish to ask about the spent fuel from the advanced gas-cooled reactors. My constituents will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's emphasis on the fact that health and safety will be paramount in AGRs. Will he assure me that the same safety criteria will be borne in mind when storing the used fuel from AGRs, and will encourage storage at each individual AGR site rather than allowing it to be brought to Heysham for storage?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend refers to wider issues, but I can assure her that the Government will continue to give maximum priority to ensuring that safety requirements are complied with fully in any decisions that are reached on these matters.
Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Secretary of State accept that the part of the country that he and I represent, the Firth of Forth is heavily contaminated by radioactivity? That has been confirmed by the river purification board, whose comments are important to me, to the Secretary of State and to the people who use the Firth of Forth. It is so bad sometimes that even the fish swim around in lead-lined bikinis. That speaks volumes and shows that Torness is not so clean as you suggest. Does the Secretary of State accept that you should close down not just Torness but all the nuclear stations in Scotland——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Brown: You should open up the entire industry, which is environmentally friendly in comparison—[Interruption.] Let us face it——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question.
Mr. Brown: That would be preferable, and, if the Secretary of State understands Scotland, he knows that.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that the river Forth is polluted in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The fact that I have caught and consumed fish from the river Forth and survived to tell the tale is an adequate response to the hon. Gentleman. All the evidence suggests that Torness has a superb safety record. The hon. Gentleman and his constituents can be reassured on that point.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Is not the true ideological motivation of electricity privatisation revealed if jobs and the social interest are to be sold off—the SSEB vans and Hydro Board dams—in spite of the fact that the substance of the industry is unsaleable? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that flotation, if that is not too strong a word, in Scotland will not be forced to the head of the queue to prevent the embarrassment of the Department of Energy? Has the Secretary of State's sterling defence of the mixed economy been cleared today with his loyal junior Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? In the light of this latest fiasco and the undermining of his credibility, should not the Secretary of State consider resignation?
Mr. Rifkind: I am always cheered up when the hon. Gentleman speaks from the Dispatch Box. As to whether the substance of the industry is being floated, I remind the hon. Gentleman that total generating capacity in Scotland is 11,000 MW, of which only 2,800 MW is derived from nuclear power. On that basis, I am entitled to say that three quarters of the capacity will be privately floated. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should welcome these matters, as will those who work in the industry.
Mr. Speaker: I now call the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)——
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from Prime Minister's Question Time. You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether she had received any complaints from London Weekend Television staff about the difficulty of getting the Leader of the Opposition to appear on its programme——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows the rules. The Prime Minister must be asked questions on subjects for which she is responsible. The House could hear that that was not a matter for which she had responsibility.
Mr. King: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked whether she had been approached in that way. Surely she is entitled——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can only offer hon. Members an opportunity to put a question to the Prime Minister. It is up to them to get their question in order, but that question was not in order.

Ambulance Dispute
5.2 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Wednesday 8 November under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss:
The current state of the ambulance dispute.
Mr. Cook: Every hon. Member in the Chamber must be aware of the gravity of the situation against which we debate the ambulance dispute. The dispute has continued for eight weeks, during which time it has affected every community in Britain. In London, it has arrived at a crisis as a result of the suspension of ambulance crews. I learned on my way to the Chamber that, in the course of today, throughout other parts of the country management have issued warnings of similar suspensions. The position in London today may be the position elsewhere in Britain by the end of the week.
In London, since yesterday, emergency cover is being provided by 50 Army vehicles and 53 police vehicles. I have no doubt that those who man those vehicles will give of their best. It is clear from their comments that they are in no doubt that their best will not be good enough to avoid the risk of tragedy. No hon. Member can have watched last night's television bulletins without concern when they saw shots of attempts to resuscitate a dying man with cardiac arrest in the back seat of a police car as it sped through central London, or of a woman with a spinal injury being manhandled in and out of the rear doors of a police car. The penalty for error in lifting a person with a spinal injury incorrectly can be paralysis for life.
The first question that the Secretary of State must answer when he responds to the debate is, why has he chosen to rely on these makeshift arrangements for emergency cover when there are trained ambulance staff at every ambulance station in London ready and eager to take emergency calls? Indeed, throughout last night they responded to emergency calls, because they continued to receive them from the Army, which called ambulance staff for the cases that they could not handle, from the fire brigade, which asked them to attend emergency incidents, and from hospitals, which asked them to attend for patients who needed to move urgently.
That was the situation throughout the night, but this morning there was a fresh development. The central control room of the London ambulance service started putting through selected emergency calls to ambulance stations and to the very staff suspended by the London ambulance service, who are not being paid by it but who on every occasion responded to them.
Those calls show how thinly stretched the temporary cover for emergencies is in London, and the response of ambulance staff exposes how unfair the Secretary of State was on Tuesday when he accused them of pretending and posturing in waiting for emergency calls.
The Secretary of State has justified suspending those staff on the basis of the 14 points of the work to rule. I have been through the 14 points and can advise the House that most of them have nothing to do with the emergency service. Some include matters such as a ban on paperwork.
The debate on whether it is possible to maintain emergency cover has focused on the point in the work to rule relating to the use of radiophones. There is no ban in
1190
the 14 points on radiophones for emergency use. The point at dispute is of such technicality that I find it breathtaking that grown men should have used it as the issue on which to suspend ambulance cover in London. Management are insisting that crews should press a button on radiophones to inform not the controller but the computer of their position so that control can select the ambulance to attend the emergency.
The staff side is offering to listen to every emergency case announced on open call, which would enable all ambulances to hear the emergency call and therefore enable the nearest one to radio in and respond to it. Mr. Spry, who is manager of one of the London regions, yesterday described this as a Mickey-Mouse service. That service is exactly the system that operated in London until eight months ago. That service, which Mr. Spry described as a Mickey-Mouse service, is precisely the system still used in almost every other ambulance service in Britain. Why, if that system is good enough for Manchester, Newcastle or Liverpool in normal times, would management rather call in the Army than see the system used in London?
There is a further dimension that makes it even more baffling and difficult to find a rational answer to that question. London ambulance staff have been suspended over a dispute aboout how they use their radiophones. They have been replaced by Army vehicles that cannot use their radiophones because they are on the wrong frequency for police control. There is no rational justification for suspending ambulance staff for using their radios in a manner that is the normal working method throughout the rest of Britain and replacing them with a system that has no radiophones.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a second.
The only possible explanation why management have taken that decision must be that they chose to escalate the dispute.
The second question that the Secretary of State must answer when he responds to the debate is, was that their decision, or was it his decision, to take this gamble with emergency cover in London?
Mr. Sayeed: On Tuesday's 6 o'clock news on television, Mr. Roger Poole said:
"Our members are prepared to operate 999 services with no qualification whatsoever."
On the same programme yesterday, ambulanceman Chris Cosham admitted that London ambulance staff were not operating existing agreed radio procedures and informing the ambulance controllers when they completed an accident or emergency task.
Mr. Cook rose——
Mr. Sayeed: No. That point was defended by Mr. Poole——
Mr. Cook rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) seems to be making a very long intervention.
Mr. Sayeed: If I am allowed to complete it, I shall not be much longer, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) ask Mr. Roger Poole to keep to the commitment that he made on Tuesday night, or does the

1191
hon. Gentleman condone the attempt by the National Union of Public Employees to undermine and deceive the British public?
Mr. Cook: The House is in some difficulty, in that it has some two hours in which to crush a three-hour debate. If that is to be the length of intervention by Conservative Members, it will not be possible to give way again. There is no contradiction——
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Frank Cook: Shut up.
Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State will allow me, I cannot respond to—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is the Secretary of State——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. Interventions of that kind do not help us.
Mr. Cook: There is no contradiction between the two statements produced by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). The ambulance staff are prepared to respond to every 999 call in precisely the way they responded up until eight months ago and in precisely the way that every other ambulance service in Britain responds to them.
This morning, the Secretary of State and I had a dummy run for this debate on radio. The right hon. and learned Gentleman justified the suspensions in London on the basis that the ambulance staff were now not moving non-emergency cases. The one example which he shared with the nation of such non-emergency cases was that of cancer patients going for radiotherapy. I have with me the union instructions on the restrictions on non-emergency cases. They list 12 separate exemptions from the ban. Exemption No. 7 is "all cancer-related patients".
Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose——
Mr. Cook: It is explicit. All cancer-related patients are exempted. The Secretary of State has 10 minutes before he gets up to respond to the debate. He has all his officials in the Box. I challenge him when he gets up to name one ambulance station in London that has refused to move patients needing radiotherapy.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Jeremy Hayes rose——
Mr. Cook: I am content to wait until the Secretary of State gets up to respond to the debate. That will give him 10 minutes to find the answer.
Mr. Hayes rose——
Mr. Cook: No, I shall not give way again. I am anxious to proceed. The hon. Member for Bristol, East took up the time of three interventions.
I have no doubt that, when the Secretary of State gets up, he will wish to accuse me of taking my brief from the unions. He has done that in every previous debate, and it would be extraordinary if he put that gibe aside in this debate. I am not ashamed to inform the House that, over the past eight weeks, I have regularly met union officials.
1192
I am not ashamed to say also that I have listened to what they said to me about the dispute. I would have more respect for the way in which the Secretary of State has discharged his duties if in those eight weeks he had met the staff side just once. I ask the Secretary of State this third question: will he now meet the staff side? Is he prepared to sit down with the staff side to see whether they can find a solution to this crisis?
As well as meeting those union officials, I have met many serving ambulance men and women and ambulance officers. I have been struck by the commitment that those staff show to their job. Those people are perhaps sadly out of place in the brave new enterprise society that Conservative Members want to create. Overwhelmingly, they are people with intelligence and qualifications that would enable them to get better paid jobs, if that was what they were interested in. They have chosen the ambulance service because it gives them satisfaction and a reward for which money alone cannot be a substitute.
There have been plenty of occasions during the past three years when the nation has had the opportunity to observe the commitment of our ambulance staff and the risks that they take in pursuing that commitment. On Tuesday, the House received the report of the Clapham accident. Paragraph 5.19 states:
"The Court heard many tributes to the courage, dedication and professionalism of all the emergency services. Having heard the evidence and seen videos of their work at the scene, I wish to endorse the deep sense of appreciation which ran throughout the evidence of passengers on the trains for the outstanding work of the men and women who did so much to ensure a safe, swift and successful operation."
When the Harrods bomb went off, ambulance crews were the only people to remain in the street tending to the wounded and dying when police closed the street because they expected a second bomb. When the aircraft crashed on the motorway, it was the ambulance crews who went into the fuselage at a time when aviation fuel poured from every fractured pipe.
Mr. Brian Murray, one of the ambulance men whom I have met recently and who attended the Brighton bombing in 1985, is observing this debate from a place that I cannot draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The question that he will want answered is, why is he now offered an increase of 6·5 per cent., which the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) today managed to describe as nearly 10 per cent.? There is no London weighting for Mr. Murray—he lives in Sussex. He has been offered less than the rate of inflation. He is being asked to take a cut in real pay. In truth, Mr. Murray is not seeking a rise just in line with inflation, and I would not pretend that he is. Mr. Murray wants an increase in line with earnings.
Mrs. Edwina Currie rose——
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Many Conservative Members share his belief that the ambulance service is a very good service and all of us owe it a great deal. Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this dispute is not about whether the ambulance service gives us a good service but about who runs the service, the management or the unions, and whether employees who are prepared to take industrial action which will damage patients should get paid more than those employees who will not?
Mr. Cook: This is a dispute about what is the proper rate of pay for the service that we demand of our ambulance staff. That is why it is proper to remind the House of the service and dedication that we require of them.
Since this dispute started, there has not been a major pay settlement as low as 6·5 per cent. In the week in which it started, the Treasury sanctioned a pay award to Inland Revenue staff that gave Inland Revenue typists 10 per cent. and inspectors 14·5 per cent. Since then, British Telecom has settled at 9 per cent. We are told that postmen may be offered 11 per cent. Firemen have settled at 8·6 per cent. The Secretary of State is much given to saying that National Health Service staff settled at 6·5 per cent.—doctors settled at 8 per cent., dentists at 8 per cent., professionals allied to medicine at 7·7 per cent. and administrators, managers and clerical staff for a deal worth 9·5 per cent.
Members of Parliament are to be awarded 10·7 per cent., and hon. Members will know that we are to receive that figure because it has already been granted to middle management in the Civil Service. I do not believe that Members of Parliament need to apologise for parity with the principal grade in the Civil Service, but I do not understand how hon. Members who benefited from that linkage could vote to deny linkage to ambulance staff. The ambulance staff seek linkage with the other two emergency services—the firemen and policemen. They work together daily with them, they share risks with them and they provide medical cover when the other services take those risks.
Mr. Richard Tracey rose——
Mr. Cook: That is why the fire brigade and the Police Federation fully support the demand of ambulance staff for linkage.
Once upon a time, the demand for linkage had the full support of the Conservative party. In 1978, the present Prime Minister wrote to two ambulance men saying of the emergency services:
"All three deserve to have their pay negotiation put outside the arena of industrial dispute by being given firm and automatic linkage".
That letter was written to Terry Wilton and Philip Rowe, two Conservative ambulance men in Somerset who were inspired by the letter to become founder members of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, an association which is pledged not to take industrial action. Terry Wilton and Philip Rowe are now so incensed by the short memories of those in the Conservative party that they are supporting the industrial action by the ambulance service this month.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I will not.
The irony of the present dispute is that, in the confrontation between Ministers and unions, Ministers are trying to beat down staff who are clear that they want a formula that will take their pay out of the realm of annual disputes, so that the ambulance service will never again need to be disrupted.
We now come to the central mystery of the dispute. Every attempt that the Secretary of State makes to explain the mystery leaves it more baffling than before. When he responds to the debate, he must say why, if he is so
1194
confident in his case and if he is so convinced that 6·5 per cent. is the just, fair and final offer to ambulance staff, he is so frightened of putting it to arbitration.
Mr. Hayes rose——
Mr. Cook: The whole country knows that the dispute would stop tonight if the Secretary of State only had the courage to go to arbitration. He does not demonstrate strength by sending in the Army; he demonstrates weakness by running away from arbitration.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman tonight.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has a unique opportunity today to behave in a statesmanlike manner. He has the opportunity because people who are frail, elderly and vulnerable, who may die tonight as a result of this dispute, would like to hear those who have influence with the trade union movement say that no wage dispute is worth the death of an old lady or a child. He has the opportunity to say, "Go back to the negotiating table and talk about structure." The hon. Gentleman is a decent, honourable and caring man. Why does he not go to the National Union of Public Employees and say, "You have peered over the abyss; don't let the inevitable happen."
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman began with the perfectly fair point that lives are at risk and that this is an extremely grave situation. That is why we pressed for a debate today. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the situation is so grave and important that the House should consider it in a statesmanlike manner, I find it a pity that neither he nor any other Conservative Member supported our application for an emergency debate yesterday. The reason is simple: they know that their case cannot readily be defended.
Every time the Secretary of State is asked why he does not go to arbitration, he replies that he cannot because he decides how much money goes into the National Health Service and he is responsible for how that mony is carved up, so he cannot hand over decisions on that to an outside, independent body.
There is one obvious problem with that logic. Half the staff in the NHS already have access to an independent pay review body. Why should ambulance staff be so different that it is a point of principle that they cannot have access to an independent review? The real problem for the Secretary of State is that, every time he gives that answer to the question about arbitration into the microphone, every listener to the radio set knows that what he means is that he dare not go to arbitration because he knows that any form of arbitration will give the ambulance staff more money. The Secretary of State does not believe that he can convince any independent adjudicator that he is right. If he believes that his case cannot convince anyone else, he cannot really believe it himself.
Over the past three weeks, the Secretary of State has talked himself into a corner from which he cannot escape into arbitration. The House has the opportunity tonight to help him to make that escape. The House can decide tonight whether to prolong the dispute by calling in the Army, or whether to resolve it by calling in the arbitrators. I do not ask only my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby

1195
for arbitration. I ask every hon. Member who wants to see full ambulance cover restored to his constituency to join us in the Lobby tonight.
5.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With the industrial action that we are facing now, especially in London, and with the seriousness of the issues involved. I should have thought that the whole House should be united by bonds of common humanity and concern for the plight of innocent members of the public who are being put at risk by industrial action in a key service. I shall begin by assuming that we are united in that. We should also be united by an overriding concern for the well-being of the National Health Service and all its staff, including those taking industrial action at present, and also for its patients, who look to us especially to guarantee the vital emergency parts of the service.
We all profess to agree on those points, but the massed ranks of Opposition Members are here for a debate about industrial action, which they always find especially attractive. Their attitude to the dispute, judged from what various hon. Members have said from a sedentary position and, by implication, from what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, is that if we and the people of London want the ambulance service back fully, we should give the ambulance men the money or whatever they want. That is an unattractive position.
We should consider the claim made by the Whitley council trade unions which are conducting the present dispute. They do not include the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, to which the hon. Member for Livingston referred. That is a moderate trade union which disapproves of industrial action. It represents about 20 per cent. of ambulance men, but because of its moderate stance the staff side has never admitted it to the Whitley council. Although some of the trade unions organising sanctions have fewer members, they monopolise the seats of the Whitley council and its negotiations.
The Whitley council trade unions have a claim for a pay increase of 11·1 per cent., with the establishment of a formula for determining future increases as well. The London men are seeking some London weighting above the over 11 per cent. claim that they are presently pursuing and I assume that they are looking for about 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. They have other claims, such as the reintroduction of premium rates for overtime—which they agreed to forgo in 1986—an increase in the standby allowances to bring them into line with those paid to ambulance officers, which management is minded to concede, an increase in annual leave and long service holidays, a reduction in the working week and the introduction of long service pay after five, 10 and 15 years of service. Those claims have not been withdrawn and they add up to more than 20 per cent. although it is the cash claim of more than 11 per cent. that is being pursued at the moment.
The unions are determined to get that claim or something like it by pursuing industrial action. Anyone who believes that in such a difficult situation it is easy for the management of the Health Service to get the service back by giving them a little bit more must reflect on the fact that I am quite confident, as is the management from its contacts with the trade union side, that they are not
1196
taking the action against the people of London to get a little bit more—they are looking for rather a lot more money.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way. This is a short debate. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave way only a couple of times. When I get on to the radiotelephones, people will want me to give way and there will be no Back-Bench debate if I give way too soon.
The fact that the ambulance men are pursuing their claim through industrial action of such an extreme nature is surprising when we recall that the trade unions were recommending the management's offer some months ago, and that offer was arrived at as a result of negotiation in the Whitley council. A few months ago the union leaders who now say that the offer of 6·5 per cent. is disgraceful, recommended their members to accept such an offer. No Labour Members referred to the inadequacy of a 6·5 per cent. offer then. No Labour Member said then that those vital men should be paid more.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. Dave Nellist rose——
Mr. Clarke: The reason for this noisy demonstration of support from Opposition Members now is that the ambulance men have taken industrial action having rejected the offer on a ballot. However, the trade union leaders who are now organising this action had recommended the 6·5 per cent.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: No.
Since the trade union leaders recommended 6·5 per cent., the offer has been improved. The men are being offered more money than their leaders recommended them to accept. The recommendation was not too surprising, nor was the fact that it emerged from the Whitely council. We are talking about a settlement which dates back to April this year.
The 6·5 per cent. offer must be set beside the 6·8 per cent. awards to the nurses and the Army. Most of the soldiers taking over ambulance men's duties today are less well paid than the ambulance men. Hon. Members accepted 6·7 per cent. and 160,000 National Health Service staff, including the ancillary workers represented by the same trade unions, also settled for 6·5 per cent. as a result of sensible negotiations.
After the 6·5 per cent. was rejected, the offer was improved—in particular, in London. The offer now, which has been rejected by the unions, is at least 9·3 per cent. for qualified personnel in London. At the moment the whole service in London is closed down because the ambulance men want more than 9·3 per cent. and they are taking industrial action to achieve that.
Mr. Skinner: Give way on that point.
Mr. Clarke: No.
The offer as it stands is worth about £13 a week for qualified staff outside London and about £20 a week for London staff. Back pay is accruing because the offer dates back to April 1989. Therefore, the ambulance men in London have at least £600 back pay waiting for them and the men outside have at least £400.

1197
Labour Members say that that is not enough and that we should give them the money. However, they have not specified how much. They have not commented on the size of the claim—[Interruption.] We know why all these Opposition Members are in the Chamber now. Even the Leader of the Opposition is here. They are lured by the scent of a good strike—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was heard in comparative silence. Throughout this debate there has been a background of commentary from a sedentary position. Hon. Members should listen to the Minister's speech.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Secretary of State for Health mentioned me specifically. If the case that he is making convinces him so absolutely, why is he not willing to let the issue go to arbitration? The Labour party and the ambulance men and women have asked for nothing more.
Mr. Clarke: In the Health Service it is necessary to settle the pay of more than 1 million staff at a level which allows management to strike the right balance between staff pay and the growth of patient services. It is necessary to be fair to all staff in every grade because most of them do vital work in a dedicated way. It is also necessary to have an overall view of how much money will be allowed for pay because some money must be left for the expansion of patient services. It would be an abdication of management's responsibility for it to say that if a group of staff strikes or takes industrial action, it will hand over its responsibility, because of that action, to an outside body to decide how much more staff should get and how far patient services should expand.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: If any Government tried to run the National Health Service on the basis that a group which took industrial action against the patients would receive arbitration, they would reproduce the chaos that was produced in 1979 in the Health Service by giving way to every member of staff—[Interruption.] This is a noisy display by Labour Members because they have been drawn here by a strike. I have not seen the Labour Benches so crowded for a health debate for years—[Interruption.] Labour Members have not been drawn here by the National Health Service; they have been drawn here to back the National Union of Public Employees in its industrial action.
Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cumbersome suggestion of arbitration is very much the second option in comparison with the direct offer of immediate negotiations to be resumed right away?
Mr. Clarke: Exactly.
So far I have described the claim with which the Leader of the Opposition did not quite have the nerve to associate himself.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Health to use the fact that, as always, the Labour Benches are crowded to divert attention from the fact that, as always, the Tory Benches are empty?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me and it is taking up time.
Mr. David Clelland: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State, who has now twice mentioned the word strike, to mislead the House when no strike is taking place?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows what this debate is about.
Mr. Clarke: In London absolutely no ambulance men are working at the moment, which by my definition is a strike.
I have covered the claim and the offer. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has just referred to the efforts of the management to move on given that the original offer was rejected by the men in a ballot. As we can all see, the improved offer in London has not brought an end to the action in London.
Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the National Health Service, has been making repeated efforts for several weeks to resume proper talks between his Whitley council negotiators and the trade unions. He has publicly offered to contemplate a two-year deal including bringing some money forward from the second year into the first year. He has offered a review of the overtime arrangements because the unions are not satisfied with the way in which their 1986 agreement is working on overtime. He has referred to the possibility of local flexibility to meet particular recruitment and retention shortages and the possibility of looking in particular at the paramedical staff and the emergency side of the service.
Mr. Skinner: How much does he earn?
Mr. Clarke: That was a public statement in advance of a resumption in negotiations. I see no way in which the chief executive of the NHS can possibly go any further in trying to get people back to work and sort the problem out where it should sensibly be sorted out—in the NHS negotiating machinery. He, I and the House have a duty to all the other staff in the service. Ninety-five per cent. of National Health Service staff have settled within the ordinary agreed procedures. They are all dedicated people as well. They have claims, some of which have been met in negotiations. The management has given over 10 per cent. to some of the low-paid staff whose jobs in the past have not been appreciated.
Any group of those staff could take industrial action and do great damage to the service if they thought that that was the way to get more than the others. I cannot help thinking that there are some in the trade union movement who have every intention that some of the others should do that if the ambulance men can establish that this sort of industrial action—if one is prepared to take it—gets more money.
Having set out the claim, the offer originally recommended by the trade unions and what has been done to try to get negotiations going again, let me consider the nature of the action now being taken and organised by the trade unions against an offer that they were once minded to accept and recommend.
Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.

1199
First, we should look at the non-emergency work of the National Health Service. About nine out of 10 patients driven by ambulances are for non-emergency work such as taking patients to clinics. That is extremely important to patients especially when, as has already been described, it involves taking cancer patients to their radiotherapy sessions. That is not being provided, and in London it has stopped completely.
The Trades Union Congress has drawn up guidelines on non-emergency patients and said which categories, in the opinion of the trade unions, need to travel as non-emergency patients. In London they were offering to do about 2 per cent. of the ordinary patient journeys described as non-emergency work. The management has said that it will not pay ambulance men in full for doing about 2 per cent. of the work when many vehicles are travelling with no patients at all during the day. The reaction of the trade unions was to withdraw all that non-emergency work. They will not accept docking of pay while they are offering to do about 2 per cent. of the work. That is what brought things to a head earlier this week. The men doing little or no work were told that they would not be paid unless they did about half the work and that their pay would be docked unless they did full work. The response to that approach to non-emergency work was that the unions immediately moved to shut down the accident and emergency service in London again. They reverted to the 14 points.
We have heard much about the 14 points and the most extraordinary quotations are being made. Yesterday, when applying for this debate, the hon. Member for Livingston quoted something to do with the radiotelephones, but I still cannot find the document from which he took it. I did not recognise it as any part of the 14 points or discussions upon them. However, he may help us later.
I have a copy of the "London Ambulance Convenors News" upon which the badges of the trade unions are proudly displayed. It sets out the 14 points with which staff were to comply from Monday 23 October. That is the day on which the accident and emergency service first vanished from the streets of London. I readily accept that some of those points are far more important than others and some have nothing to do with the accident and emergency service. We are all getting bogged down with radiotelephones. Point three of the 14 points under the heading
"A ban on the use of the radio telephone"
states:
"Day crews to report at nearest hospital or ambulance station. A and E crews to assist with open-call system and to comply with blue calls, urgent assists and queries on calls."
That was a deliberate decision to stop using the new semi-automatic call and recall system which was introduced because of the inadequacy, about which Labour Members have long complained, of the old system in London. We were not complying in London with the——
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Clarke: I promise that I will give way on the radiotelephone, but then we must move on.
That was the point put into practice when the accident and emergency service first vanished about two weeks ago. The management has expertise, and it does not wish to use the police and the Army in London. However, it rapidly came to the conclusion that it could not guarantee an
1200
accident and emergency service on those terms. The open-call system had long been inadequate in London. All that it requires—as could happen—is for one microphone to be left open accidentally, or accidentally on purpose, and the whole system is aborted. It also means that one loses control of the vehicle because the crew does not report back when it has finished work. It works in the rest of the country because it has not yet been computerised, but it was known not to work in London and it was abandoned because of its inadequacy. It was reintroduced by the trade unions because of that inadequacy and because they knew the management would lose control of the whereabouts of the vehicles.
The House must ask itself, what was the motive in introducing a rule which states:
"A ban on the use of the radio telephone"?
The motive for setting out the 14 points was to ensure that the service did not work properly. That is what was achieved.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the point explicitly said:
"A and E crews to assist with 'open-call system'".
That means that they will respond to every 999 call over the open-call system. If that system is considered so appalling and unreliable that it was necessary to suspend the service and bring in the police and the Army, why was it that for 20 years until eight months ago that was the service covering London?
Mr. Clarke: It was becoming increasingly inadequate, and Labour Members were in the forefront of those complaining about its inadequacy. It cannot cope with the volume of traffic in London and certainly not when there is an industrial dispute, when microphones are being left open, nobody knows where vehicles are and they are not reporting back——
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose——
Mr. Clarke: Let me move on.
That was accepted by the trade unions. The House will recall that the police, St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross were used for only about 36 hours before normal service was resumed. The management said that it could not maintain an accident and emergency service in London without the police, Red Cross and St. John Ambulance. That was worrying and the trade unions sat down with the management and discussed what to do. On 24 October the 14 points were revised and an agreement was reached.
The media and half the House are suddenly becoming experts on radiotelephones, although that is not the only issue. Point five of the 24 October agreement states:
"All operational staff, including the frontline crews, will use the radiotelephone, in accordance with London Ambulance Service radio-telephone procedures".
That is working normally and, as we all recall, the result was that the police left the streets of London and returned to their policing duties, the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance were stood down and we had a safe and reliable accident and emergency service again. That was the agreement between the trade unions and the management. The events of 48 hours ago occurred because of the rows over the non-emergency staff and because the management would not pay the men in full for offering to do 2 per cent. of the work. The trade unions broke their agreement and told their men to go back to the 14 paints knowing perfectly well that they were bringing back on to

1201
the streets the police, the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and—as I told the House in my statement a fortnight ago—the Army to provide a service that they were refusing to maintain.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware of the letter sent by the five unions this morning to the London ambulance service, which says in its final sentence:
"Finally, the representatives of the trade unions in London will meet you to discuss any matters the moment you restore an accident and emergency service in London?"
Will he confirm that the accident and emergency service in London to which they are referring is the system that worked in London up to eight months ago? Is that not the truth? If it is, why will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for someone to meet them?
Mr. Clarke: On 24 October the trade unions agreed to restore accident and emergency services——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true?
Mr. Clarke: It is not true.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is this the truth? The trade unions are offering to meet if the right hon. and learned Gentleman arranges for the restoration of the service in London to what it was eight months ago.
Mr. Clarke: It was an inadequate service. It proved inadequate on 23 October and the unions—[Interruption.] On 24 October the trade unions accepted that they had gone too far with their 14 points. They agreed with the management that they would use the radiotelephones in accordance with London ambulance procedures. They broke that agreement to make an industrial point.
The management side offered to meet the trade unions again. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) was right to remind the House of my meeting with Roger Poole on television when he continued to assert that the men were prepared to operate normally. The London ambulance service management, which is desperate to get an ordinary service back, immediately contacted Chris Humphreys, the trade union leader in London, to see whether Roger Poole was confirming that the trade unions would comply with their agreement to use the radiotelephones in the ordinary way. Those London trade union leaders were pulled out of a meeting by their national leaders to avoid going back and confirming what Roger Poole had said. They are still refusing to honour the agreement that they reached on 24 October. That is the background to the dispute.
From my point of view—I believe that it should also be the view of the House—we require an effective accident and emergency service in London that can be guaranteed. People must decide who they believe can make the judgment on that service—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clarke: The management of the London ambulance service has expertise, judgment and is not directly party to the dispute—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clarke: In the past, the management has discovered, through experience forced upon it, that one cannot guarantee an effective service with the 14 points.
The Labour party prefers the judgment of the National Union of Public Employees on how to operate the accident and emergency service in London. The Opposition have asked me to overrule the local management because NUPE has gone back on its word by breaking the agreement of 24 October. NUPE wants to operate a system that it knows will not work.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell rose——
Mr. Clarke: No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) invited the hon. Member for Livingston to take a statesmanlike view. The speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Health was worthy of a shop steward in the middle of an industrial dispute—[Interruption.] He went over the point about the radiotelephones with all the accuracy of a barrack room lawyer trying to defend the difficult position created for him by a trade union—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clarke: Let us address ourselves to what the shadow Secretary of State for Health said should be done as it gives us an idea of what a Labour Government would do faced with the present situation.
Mr. Frank Haynes rose——
Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, but I will not give way, even to the hon. Gentleman, or there will be no time for debate.
The hon. Member for Livingston has suggested that I should push the management out of the way and intervene as Secretary of State. He thinks that I should get in the trade unions, ask them what they want and make some arrangements to ensure that they get it. I did not appoint one of the best general managers in the National Health Service, Mr. Duncan Nichol, to treat him in that way. I do not believe that that is a sensible way in which to run the service.
The suggestions of the hon. Member for Livingston show the type of approach that the Labour party adopts to the management of great public services such as the NHS. The Opposition's idea is that if the unions demand something one should overrule and undermine the management, get the trade unions in and do a political deal which is acceptable to their trade union masters. That is exactly what they did in the late 1970s. All this is familiar to every hon. Member who was a Member during the Callaghan Government. The then Minister for Health—the post now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—was NUPE-sponsored. The Opposition gave so many concessions to everyone who took srike action that, by the winter of 1979, they had everyone in the services on strike. The only ones who suffered when Labour was in power were those, especially NHS employees, who would not take industrial action.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way to the same hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
Mr. Clarke: In the six years of the previous Labour Government the real-terms pay of nurses sank every year for six years. During that time, doctors' pay was below inflation——
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not continually rise.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let us get back to parity.
Mr. Clarke: The BMA does not take the kind of industrial action that brings Opposition Members flocking to the Floor of the House to say that Ministers should intervene to give them the money to get the service back working.
This debate is not the way in which to resolve this dispute. The dispute will be resolved by common sense and by the responsible action of those outside. Meanwhile, everyone should discharge their duty to the NHS.
Mr. Dennis Turner rose——
Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way.
It is the duty of the London ambulance service management to make its best judgment about whether it can guarantee an effective service to the public and to seek to get its trade unions to honour the agreement that the unions made with it on 24 October. It is the duty of Duncan Nichol and his colleagues on the NHS management executive to continue to make valiant efforts——
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Turner rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clarke: It is Duncan Nichol's duty to continue with his efforts to get the unions back to the negotiating table.
It is the Government's responsibility to look after the interests of innocent people whose welfare, when injured or seriously ill, is put at risk by the irresponsible action taken by the unions in parts of the ambulance service, in particular, in the capital.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Clarke: What we are hearing from the Labour party is a din. What we should be hearing from it is an appeal for common sense and an appeal for negotiations to be resumed.
I believe that the trade unions should show some compassion and concern for the people of London. They should honour their commitment to maintain the accident and emergency service. The Labour party and NUPE should tell the trade unions to get back to the negotiating table and to follow the procedures of the NHS. In that way, the dispute could be settled for those staff as it was for 95 per cent. of NHS staff.
Hon. Members: Resign!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It must be the right of every hon. Member to be
1204
able to listen to debates. I was sitting near my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but, because of the barracking from the Labour Benches, it was almost impossible to hear what he said. Will you please remind——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was here and he saw me rise on numerous occasions.
I must tell the House that a great many hon. Members want to participate——
Mr. George Galloway rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. So that as many hon. Members as possible can be called I ask for brief speeches—speeches of five minutes even, if that can be achieved.
5.59 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and find it difficult to express my anger and contempt in adequate terms. I have sat in this House for 22 years. Today, I speak freely as someone who has been closely involved with the work of the London ambulance service for the past 14 years. I hold the view which I shall express today because a member of my family who has been closely involved in the issue has been driven out of the ambulance service to which he gave total commitment by the appalling pay and conditions.
When I listen to the Secretary of State, I find it impossible to believe that any serious politician can come to the House and make such scurrilous and totally unacceptable attacks on the London ambulance service or any other service. We are talking about a pay dispute which has been forced upon men and women who, day after day, give a commitment to the people of London of whom the Secretary of State spoke. Day after day, shift after shift, those men and women face increasing personal violence and great risk from increasingly hazardous diseases. They are constantly prepared to do so for wages which the Secretary of State would not accept for someone who devilled for him.
In this dispute, the Government have deliberately sought to provoke the ambulance men and women. Since cash limiting has taken over in the Health Service, the Government have deliberately sought to split those who work in what the Secretary of State constantly refers to as the emergency services from other men and women. His suggestion, somehow or other——
Mr. Dykes rose——
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State's suggestion is that this is a service in which less than 10 per cent. of the calls involve emergency work and for the rest of the time the staff do no more than taxi drivers. That was the implication of everything that the Secretary of State said.
The service is so stretched and ambulance workers are so tired because they are constantly working—some of them seven days a week. They include people who one day drive old ladies to hospital on coaches and the next day kneel into a battered car to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to save someone's life. The Secretary of State's constant assertion that these people are not ordinary ambulance men and women is not only despicable but unworthy of comment.
Mr. Dykes rose——
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mrs. Dunwoody: I have watched the deterioration of the service, the inability of managers to manage and the imposition of management services which do not operate.
The Secretary of State talked about the open-call system. Why is it so essential? It is essential because, when all the other systems do not work, the ambulance workers can hear one another and respond. I have known children with steel bolts in their heads saved because the open-call system was used to relay urgent messages from one ambulance to another. Time and again I have seen men and women take risks that the Secretary of State would never take. He talks about bandages and blankets. He would not care to see his family wrapped in dirty blankets, yet he dares to suggest that the ambulance men and women are wrong to refuse to co-operate without properly equipped and cleaned ambulances. What he is doing is beneath contempt.
The Secretary of State is removing the dignity and the right to a decent standard of living from the men and women who provide a vital service which saves lives every day and night—not just when it suits him. I cannot tell him how much I despise that action from someone who is paid a reasonable wage and, supposedly, comes to this House as a responsible Secretary of State. He is becoming the Erich Honecker of the Government, riding his Wartburg round and round the M25, looking for a way out. Let him do the decent thing and resign with grace.
6.5 pm
Dame Jill Knight: The speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was rather odd in some particulars. He finished with a throb in his throat and begged the House to vote for his motion to bring back full cover for the people of this country. The odd thing was that he had spent a considerable amount of time earlier in his speech telling us that people were receiving full ambulance cover and all the 999 calls were being answered. I was listening extremely carefully, and the fact is that we were told that 999 calls were being answered and then told to vote for the motion so that all 999 calls would be answered.
I am getting a little sick of the parrot cry for arbitration, arbitration, arbitration. I wonder why Opposition Members do not bother to find out the facts and recall history. The NHS pay and conditions have never ever been settled by arbitration. Pay and terms of service for ambulance staff and others in the NHS have always—this was so when the Labour party was in government—been settled by the Whitley council. Therefore, to suppose that this is a magic formula which the Labour party never used when it was in office is quite extraordinary.
Many misapprehensions are going round this House tonight. One is that hon. Members from one side of the House have bleeding hearts and the others have stony ones. That is completely untrue. No hon. Member has anything but admiration for the way that the ambulance personnel normally respond to emergency and more run-of-the-mill calls. Between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the duties which ambulance personnel carry out are not actually emergency calls, but important calls to take people to treatment.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The same people carry them out.
Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Lady must not pretend to have the only bleeding heart in the House, because she is totally inaccurate. We all want the ambulance staff to get a fairer wage.
Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight: No, I am trying to be quick.
The second misapprehension is that what is on offer is so unreasonable that it calls for an industrial dispute. Virtually all other staff in the NHS have settled pay claims—some of which have not produced a settlement as favourable as the one on offer. As we know, the London ambulance men are being offered 9·3 per cent. Many settlements have been made that are far below that figure. An increase of 20 per cent. in overtime pay has been offered, which does not seem unreasonable.
I believe that, during the past three years, ambulance men have been given a 28 per cent. increase. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that during those three years the retail price index has risen by considerably less—I think that the figure is 9·4 per cent. Therefore, it is hardly the case that the offer is so unreasonable and—with all the discussions that can take place in the Whitley council—it seems incredible that the ambulance staff feel that they must continue with this dispute.
The fourth misapprehension is that ambulance staff should be linked with firefighters—fifth-year firefighters at that. What about first, second or third-year firefighters?
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): They are not paid so much.
Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend is correct. I sometimes think that Opposition Members will never be satisfied with any decision of a court or other body outside this House unless the decision goes their way.
Professor Clegg looked at this very point of comparability between ambulance men and firefighters. I refer hon. Members to Command Paper 7641—the standing commission on pay comparability—a most thorough document. Hon. Members may be interested to know the yardsticks examined by the professor and his commission. He looked at the degree to which the job is made disagreeable and/or difficult by dust, fumes, wet, noise, extremes of temperature, lack of freedom of movement, lighting or unpleasant movement—and at the degree of physical endurance involved. He also considered work performed under unfavourable environmental conditions such as those that I have already Mentioned——
Mrs. Dunwoody: When was that study done?
Dame Jill Knight: In 1978. The hon. Lady would do well to have a look at what Professor Clegg had to say. He considered the danger of falling from height and of incurring cuts and burns. Things have not changed—[Interruption.] Why does not the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who makes a fetish of involving himself in every debate from a sedentary position, not have the guts to stand up and make his own speech instead of trying to spoil someone else's?
Mr. Cryer rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I think that the hon. Lady is indicating that she is not giving way.
Mr. Cryer rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been called and he is wasting valuable time.
Dame Jill Knight: I should like to draw attention to a statement made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) when he was Home Secretary:
"People talk about special cases. But the point is that a number of people in industry in general can also put forward a special case. I must make it clear…that we cannot move outside our guidelines".
If that was a fair comment to make when the Opposition were in power, it is fair comment to make today.
My right hon. and learned Friend has two clear overriding duties to this country. First, he cannot allow the message to go out that failing to care for emergency patients or for those who have met with accidents or heart attacks will put extra money into people's pockets. It would be monstrous if one had only to threaten to withhold medical care to obtain an increase in salary. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend would be saying if he allowed himself to be blackmailed into meeting the Opposition's demands.
The second duty——
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose——
Dame Jill Knight: I am anxious to be quick.
Mr. Lofthouse rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she will not give way.
Mr. Cryer: I should be quite happy to make my own speech——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it very clear that she is not giving way.
Dame Jill Knight: I have never known the hon. Member for Bradford, South to need the pity of the rest of the House.
The second duty on my right hon. and learned Friend's shoulders——
Mr. Lofthouse rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist once the hon. Lady has said that she will not give way.
Dame Jill Knight: Many hon. Members want to speak, as I know you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The second duty that lies heavy on the shoulders of my right hon. and learned Friend is that of ensuring that all emergency calls are met. If the only way to do that is to call in the Army and the police, so be it. I do not believe that ambulance staff generally are militant people. Most of them must detest putting sick people in jeopardy. I hope that in future we can arrive at a no-strike agreement so that never again will our people have to face the trauma, worry and fear that are now in their hearts.
6.17 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The placing of troops on the streets of the capital by the Health Department is a reflection of the gravity of the situation, but some of the Secretary of State's characteristic comments on it did not measure up to that gravity. There have been reports during the afternoon of some staff being suspended without pay in Manchester, Surrey and Essex, so the problem is unequivocally a national one. The dispute should never have been allowed to reach this stage. The Secretary of State could have used his office long ago to prevent that.
I want to offer one reflection on the post-Griffiths NHS management which has become visible through this sad dispute. At the time of the Griffiths report and the debates in the House on the new management structure that was envisaged—I believe that the Secretary of State was then a Minister of State at the Department of Health—we were offered an assurance of the Minister's continuing political accountability to Parliament for the NHS. Yet in this dispute the Secretary of State appears to be willing to regard the NHS from his office as a spectator sport.
This contrasts dramatically with the position that the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopted in the House only two weeks ago on GPs' contracts. He did not spectate on that occasion: he dictated. As a result of the belligerence that he has shown in this dispute and in other matters he has inflamed an already vexed problem.
The Secretary of State defended Mr. Duncan Nichol. In what The Guardian yesterday described as a frank interview, Mr. Nichol
"acknowledged that he and his colleagues were failing to convince NHS staff, let alone the wider public, of the merits of the Government's health shake-up. There was, he said, a long way to go."
I suspect that the Secretary of State's comments this afternoon have not got him much further down the road towards displaying concern or sensitivity about the attitudes expressed in the dispute.
Elsewhere we are told that advisers advise and Ministers decide. In the Department of Health it appears that managers decide and Ministers do little more than provoke. The Secretary of State should face up to his
responsibility for that.
What of the remuneration of the ambulance men and their comparability with other emergency services? The Secretary of State has made it clear on several occasions, and confirmed this afternoon, that he sets the parameters within which pay bargaining is conducted at Whitley council level, but he and the Prime Minister earlier today were disingenuous to suggest that progress can be achieved at Whitley council level, given that he has made it categorically clear that more resources will not be available. That knocks on the head any room for meaningful manoeuvre or further negotiations to try to resolve the dispute.
As the Secretary of State will not speak to them directly, it is worth letting the ambulance men speak for themselves. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), a Mr. Black, who has almost 12 years of service with the Northumbria ambulance service, wrote to my hon. Friend as follows:
"Over recent years we have in this service put up with a great deal of changes, cutbacks, and streamlining, but nevertheless 'weathered the storm' and picked ourselves up again … Mr. Duncan Nichol makes a statement that we do not compare with the Police and Fire services. It is totally

1209
demoralising and upsetting. As you well know we have the notorious A.1 road running through our area, and often get calls to accidents on it. On some occasions the fire service are in attendance with the police and ourselves, and sometimes there is only Police and ambulance. After Mr. Nichol's comments I feel that whenever in future I am involved with other emergency services I am going to feel inferior to them. It is ridiculous to think that we work for a service that is not classed as an emergency service."
I quote his letter in full as he gives a clear representation of how the ambulance men feel. He continued:
"Whenever we leave an incident, we leave behind us the traffic police trying to take statements, and speak with witnesses, the Fire service hosing the road, and sweeping up broken glass, and the main responsibility for the major part of the incident is left with us, which is the lives of the injured who are in our hands only, until we reach the hospital. I am not decrying another service because one service can not work without the other, but it certainly makes me think that I am part of the 'Cinderella Service' … I have been proud to be an ambulance man and thoroughly enjoy my work, but since Mr. Nichol's remarks I have felt demoralised and sickened … The opinion I am portraying is my own, but I feel that this will be the same throughout the ambulance service nationally."
When, as he must, the Secretary of State defends Mr. Nichol, will he bear in mind that that is the effect of Mr. Nichol's attitude in this dispute?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Northumberland ambulance service is one of the best in the country. It has gone through considerable reorganisation and it almost solely performs accident and emergency work. It does hardly any non-emergency work. A high proportion of its staff are trained as paramedical staff. Duncan Nichol openly talked about looking particularly at paramedical staff, people with high qualifications and those who concentrate on accident and emergency services. Unfortunately, that view is rejected by the trade unions, the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). They do not believe in distinguishing between the tenth of the mileage for emergency work and the other nine tenths for the rest. Duncan Nichol has freely spoken about the need to consider high-quality paramedically trained staff of the kind now concentrated in Northumberland.
Mr. Kennedy: I can only state the hallowed phrase that is used when things go badly for the Government—the message somehow does not seem to be getting across to the ambulance men.
I now quote another ambulance man in my constituency, Mr. Moore. He lives in Wester Ross, a typical profoundly rural area. He writes with a sense of frustration about the conditions in which he and his colleagues find themselves. He says:
"In addition to the 40 hours which I am on duty I also do 'on call' duty which amounts to a further 40 hours each week. For this I receive in the region of 50p per hour. Due to economic factors many rural areas are run on a wing and a prayer. Some are still served by contractors … where untrained staff are paid per mile for driving an ambulance. Fortunately, the 'prayer' seems to work, so far. The current dispute is a call for fair treatment—not to get rich but to stop getting poorer."
As many hon. Members will know from their constituency work, many ambulance men are in receipt of housing benefit and family credit. That shows the inadequacy of their pay, particularly for those with young families. It cannot be good for much of their income to be derived from the state benefit system. Surely the Secretary of State can recognise the inadequacies. More skill training
1210
and more paramedics are needed, but resources and political will are at the heart of the dispute. The Secretary of State's speech lacked conviction.
I now refer to the longer-term implications. There should be an independent pay review board for this sector to avoid leap-frogging between the Whitley arrangement and the independent pay review bodies for certain sectors. It should take into account public and private sector comparisons, market factors and conditions in local labour markets. If we have an independent arbitration service, it, too, should consider no-strike agreements and pendulum arbitration as a way of resolving future disputes.
Clearly, the existing management structure has failed by letting the dispute reach this stage. The remuneration on offer is unfair and the denial of comparability is equally unjust. As Lord McCarthy, when he looked at the Whitley set-up, said, it consisted of
"employers who do not pay and paymasters who do not employ."
The dispute is presided over by a Minister who does not seem sufficiently to care. The Army should be put back into barracks and ambulance crews should be put back on our streets.
6.25 pm
Mr. John Marshall: There has been more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the debate. It is well to remember the tactics that have been employed by the ambulance men in London this week. They were to maximise public inconvenience and minimise the cost to their own pay packets. Those are the tactics of the blackmailer and the bully-boy in the 1980s. [Interruption.] They are quite disgraceful tactics, and I thank the Opposition for their support. Faced with those tactics, any responsible Government would have done the same as the present Government have done. After all, the Labour Government put the green goddesses on to the streets in 1978–79.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On that occasion, the fire service was shut down completely. Obviously, in that situation, any Government had to save lives. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is on all fours with the firemen's dispute, he is looking back 10 years to when he was not a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Marshall: As a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman knows that 90 per cent. of cases in London are not emergency cases, and those are the cases with which the ambulance men are not dealing. Surely, when 90 per cent. of cases are not being dealt with, it is the Government's duty to take some action. Labour Members' lectures on Health Service staff wages are like Satan rebuking sin. The last Labour Government were responsible for a massive decline in the living standards of nurses and others in the Health Service.
This afternoon, we heard the Labour party's first commandment—"Thou shalt not annoy thy union paymasters." The House has heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he had been meeting ambulance workers for the past eight weeks. He did not say that he condemned their action or that he asked them to go back to their normal work. Labour party leaders will never condemn union action that creates hardship for others or is responsible for job losses.

1211
Some people say that the Government should pay whatever is necessary to end the dispute, but they do not consider the consequences. If people are paid a certain sum to stop an irresponsible strike, the result will be a rash of irresponsible public sector strikes. If the Government pay huge sums for every irresponsible strike, the result will be rip-roaring inflation. Opposition Members know all about that, because they were responsible for it before. Those who suffer most from rip-roaring inflation are those for whom the Labour party claims to stand—the elderly, the sick, and the poorest paid. The weakest members of the community suffer from rip-roaring inflation. That is why the Government are right to stand firm rather than to pay up and give in to blackmail, which is what they are being asked to do.
6.29 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The ambulance workers of Lancashire are as keen as the ambulance workers in the rest of the country to achieve a proper wage structure. They are just as determined in their action, but there is a significant difference between the position of the people of Lancashire and that of the people of London and other parts of the country: the people of Lancashire have their emergency ambulance service secured, because the chief ambulance officer has decided that he will not have the Army, the police or any other organisation running ambulances in Lancashire. He talked to the trade unions and, as could be the position everywhere else, there is in Lancashire an emergency service covering 999 calls, maternity calls, the terminally ill, renal dialysis calls, radiotherapy and special categories of people at risk. There has been an agreement with the trade unions, the organisations that Conservative Members are castigating and slandering this evening.
The ambulance workers of Lancashire have shown determination to win their proper pay. In common with their colleagues throughout the country, they have also shown their devotion to the service. All ambulance workers would gladly sign the sort of agreement which was signed in Lancashire this morning.
Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Wise: As the hon. Gentleman has already intervened in the debate and as there is a little time available to us, my answer is no.
I recommend that the Secretary of State consults the chief ambulance officer of Lancashire and follows his example. As it is supposed to be the trade unions alone who are making certain claims, I recommend that the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads yesterday's editorial comment in the Lancashire Evening Post, which states:
"It is a sad fact of life that too many people take too much for granted and that applies particularly to the three emergency services.
The only time we really take note of ambulancemen and women is either when we need the service personally or when its personnel are involved in saving life during the aftermath of a national disaster."
The article continues:
"Backed by public support and sympathy, the ambulance-men's case is a sound one."
That is right.
The Government are making a tremendous error in thinking that they can distinguish between patient care and the work of the ambulance service. That is their excuse for refusing arbitration. In the terms of the Government's
1212
reply to the Select Committee on Social Services, they are afraid that money will be "diverted from patient care", but the ambulance service and ambulance workers are patient care. There is no patient care unless these workers do their job as they want to do. The population is behind them, as the Secretary of State will learn to his cost. Come to Lancashire, Secretary of State, and learn from those who have saved the emergency service in the county without the ambulance workers having to lose pay——
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the management in London entered into an agreement with the unions on 24 October which put ambulances back on the street? Earlier this week, with the approval of her party, the unions cynically broke that agreement and returned to the old operation of their 14-point plan.
Mrs. Wise: Like the Secretary of State, I have had the privilege of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Consequently, I am fully seized of the situation in London. The London ambulance workers are willing to run an ambulance service which would be entirely adequate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said, that service may even have advantages. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument will not wash.
The ambulance and emergency services for Lancashire have been saved. If the Secretary of State would give way and cease his provocation, the emergency service for the rest of the country could be saved as well.
6.35 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: We all know the story about the man who asked the yokel where he was and the route that he should take, whereupon the yokel told him that he had come from the wrong place. Where are we in this dispute? We are in a mess. In fact, we are in a hell of a mess. Why are we in it? I suggest that there are many historical reasons, which have not all surfaced today.
The first roots of the dispute were established in 1978, and they were part and parcel of what led to the Clegg report of 1979. If ayone wants to dispute that, let me make it clear that I have the report with me and can quote from it if necessary.
I am a practising personnel man who has been involved in industrial relations for over 20 years, but I could not find my way around, or understand, what is going on. There are far too many negotiators. There are far too many people who have their fingers in the pie. There is the Whitley council. What is that body and where is it? How are the members of the council appointed and where are they appointed? There are unions with leaders who clearly do not have the trust of their members; if they did, they would be able to strike a deal and adhere to it. Management is not negotiating because it does not have control of the finances. A financial limit is imposed upon it. No self-respecting management that is in that position can enter negotiations and strike a deal.
What is the role of the Secretary of State? He is player No. 5 in this game. No one knows what his role is, but we all have suspicions. Finally, there is the Treasury, which is player No. 6. We are still not sure about the nature of the Treasury's role.
Much is said about comparability and the Clegg report. Hon. Members talk about the report as if it came down from the mountains. They suggest that it is inviolate and

1213
right for all time, and never could have been wrong in the first place. We must recall the days when the Clegg commission was established. What was the climate of that time? How many people were in dispute at that time? When we read the Clegg report and everything that is related to it, we find that it is one, two or three, and then the ambulance men. The report states that it had to make assumptions when it came to determining comparability because it did not have time to discover the facts. The Clegg commission was given too great a brief and too little time. As a result, the ambulance men's case came last. The commission did not do its job properly. If there were a re-examination now of the ambulance men alone, we might come to different conclusions.
Who can put his hand on his heart and say that in his opinion ambulance men are dealing with emergency cases all the time? The figure of 10 per cent. refers to time and not to cases. How many firemen are dealing with emergencies for more than 10 per cent. of their working day? I would back the firemen's snooker, darts and other teams in my area against the teams formed by the ambulance men in the area, even though the firemen do not have quite so much free and down time as the ambulance men. However, we are told that the ambulance men must have more. The Clegg commission made a mistake and did not do its job properly. It considered the issues in hindsight and as a consequence the argument that is advanced on the basis of the Clegg report is unsound.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that firemen are always ready to respond to calls? The only way in which we could oblige the hon. Gentleman would be to set fire to our cities so that the firemen could work 24 hours a day. Is that not ridiculous?
Mr Holt: A great deal of what we are discussing is ridiculous. The ambulance men's dispute should never have reached its present stage. That is ridiculous. To some extent, it is ridiculous to talk about the events of 10 years ago. To talk about 6·5 per cent. when everyone else, including ourselves, is getting more is also ridiculous. We are told that there is a man who has the freedom to negotiate when he has not, and he is saying silly things about the ambulance men having £600 to come, for example, when that is their money, money which has been withheld for the past few months. It is said that they can have some of next year's money, but that is not the way for anyone to negotiate this year's agreement. That is entirely the wrong approach.
The Clegg report states:
"We have no direct information relating to comparable conditions of service, but ambulancemen's conditions of service are broadly the same as for NHS ancillaries."
That is how out of touch Clegg was in his report. He actually equated ambulance men, who deal with emergencies, with cooks and porters in hospitals.
I am a little closer to this issue than some of my colleagues because I am one of the few Conservative Members who have actually met Roger Poole and the others concerned with the dispute. Far too many unions are involved—we are trying to deal with five unions, and we should be trying to do something about that. Roger Poole, in a letter to me, states that the unions are looking
1214
for a pay formula that would ensure that never again would ambulance staff have to take industrial action over a national wage claim.
One of the comments in the Clegg report is that these people do not feel that society gives them the status that they should be given. It suggests that they should be monthly salaried—but 10 years on, no one has actually thought about it. That is something that the Government could be doing now. The pay review body should be thinking about the status of ambulance staff, and we should be considering no-strike agreements similar to those with the police and others in the public sector. The Government Front Bench are snared, but they can get themselves off the hook if they listren to their friends on the Conservative Benches.
6.41 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has properly pinpointed some of the anomalies as they are perceived by a Conservative Member. There is a powerful case for those anomalies to be referred to the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service. I hope that he agrees with that, and that he will condemn the disgraceful speech of the Secretary of State. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech demeaned the occasion and, indeed, demeaned him.
I do not enter this debate with a National Union of Public Employees briefing or with a briefing from any union. My interest lies in the death of Mrs. Margaret Lander, a constituent of mine, and the suffering of a Mr. Lambert, both of Canning Town. More than a fortnight ago, they waited an hour for an ambulance when, only five minutes away at the Plaistow ambulance station, ambulance crews were willing and waiting to take them to hospital. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State had the effrontery to say that ambulance people were only pretending to be available. I can tell him that since 9 am yesterday, more than 100 calls to the London ambulance service have been answered by ambulance personnel, most in voluntary time and through the radiotelephone system.
The Secretary of State's conduct has been very bad, and I criticise him on two main grounds. However, before doing so I want to comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Brmingham, Edgbastoin (Dame J. Knight), who referred to pay. If she believes in market forces, as do most Conservative Members, she should pay attention to the haemorrhage in the personnel of the London ambulance service. Of the 2,700 staff, 680 left during the two years to June and of those, 380 left before normal retirement age and 200 because they were unfit.
Dame Jill Knight rose——
Mr. Spearing: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I am responding to points made by the hon. Lady. She knows, as do all those who referred to the 10 per cent. time factor, that it is misleading because those who deal with non-emergency cases are still dealing with sick people who are in distress. Those who care for those who are in distress are necessarily under stress themselves. All ambulance crews are under stress all the time.
The Secretary of State says that Mr. Nichol is concerned with the highly skilled. He may not realise, and neither may Mr. Spry—who is not the administrator of the ambulance service, but the general manager of South-West

1215
Thames regional health authority—that before one can become skilled at dealing with accidents on the A1 one must do an apprenticeship in dealing with the less difficult cases. I challenge the Secretary of State to say that he and the South-West Thames regional health authority are not putting out feelers for privatising the non-emergency services—for hiving off the so-called non-emergency service. Are they not in contact with such organisations as Securicor, London Regional Transport and even borough transport authorities? I have asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, but he appears not to know the answer. As Secretary of State, he should know the answer. Will he get up and tell me whether that is the case?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Currently, the non-emergency staff in London are offering to do about 2 per cent. of their work, but want to be paid in full. The management will not accept that. That led to the trade unions breaking their agreement on the accident and emergency services and coming out in sympathy. The money that was previously being spent on non-emergency crews is, of course, now required to pay for the hospital car service, the taxis and the other vehicles that are being used to carry non-emergency patients. There are already parts of the country where the non-emergency service has been adequately replaced by other forms of transport. The strike is accelerating that day throughout the country.
Mr. Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deny my main charge. He has destabilised public service after public service—in which Conservative Members appear to have no interest—by threatening the integrity of those services and calling them into question. I challenge him to say that he is not doing that, but he has already confirmed my fears in his intervention. How can we extend the hospital ambulance service by expenditure on a minicab or a black taxi to take an elderly lady to hospital? That is what the Government are doing, and it undermines the morale and the cohesion of the ambulance service. The dispute is not simply about the immediate matter of pay.
On 31 October 1986, I had a debate with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I am sorry that she is not in her place today. She said:
"About 10,500 fewer walking patients were being transported—a reduction of 44 per cent. I am more than happy at that development."—[Official Report, 31 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 666.]
It was absolute sauce and a scandal for the hon. Lady to say that. She is no longer a Minister, but the Secretary of State and his colleagues are responsible for that policy. They are responsible for capping the funds of the ambulance service in London, when, in fact, it should be demand-led.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the radio service. That service was introduced a few months ago, but it is an electronic computer system that does not always work properly. It sometimes jams. The Poplar ambulance station sent a detailed memorandum to the so-called administrators of the London ambulance service asking them to put it right. They have not even received a reply—[Interruption.] I ask the Secretary of State to pay attention to what I am saying. I hope that he will stop talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and attend to the detail of the shocking maladministration of the ambulance service in London. That is the background to the dispute.
1216
My constituents in Canning Town were waiting for an ambulance from the local ambulance station. The administrators of the London ambulance service decreed that they should not receive their ambulance calls, and the Secretary of State must take responsibility for that decision because it was made by one man, whom I will riot name, with the Secretary of State's connivance. It is he and he alone who is responsible.
6.49 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State commented on how many Labour Members were in the House when he spoke tonight. They are here because they had hoped to hear something from him tonight which showed that we could look forward to the resolution of the dispute. We have heard nothing of that tonight. Those Labour Members who are present tonight are reflecting the high level of public concern in their constituencies that there should be an urgent resolution to the dispute.
The situation is serious. The Army and police vehicles and the voluntary ambulances cannot cope adequately with accidents and emergencies. To expect them to do so is unfair on ambulance crews who want to work and who have been prevented from doing so, and it is unfair on the police and the Army, who are put in the front line of a situation which is not of their making and with which they know that they cannot cope.
The Government have been right in the past to praise the ambulance service, particularly when ambulance officers and crews have risked their lives to save others. But when it comes to a pay award, they are offered less than the rate of inflation. They are offered a pay award that would let them see their standard of living slide, and that is wrong; that would see a widening gap between their pay and the pay of the other emergency services—the police and the fire service—with whom they have to work as a team.
The dispute need never have happened. It should never have happened. Having created the dispute, the Government are now making things worse every day and every hour.
The Secretary of State has insulted the ambulance crews that have been praised in the past by accusing them of posturing and pretending. He has twisted the facts, saying that the unions first accepted the pay offer when it is clear that the pay offer was twice refused on a ballot of all the membership. He said again and again in the House tonight that the union is on strike. The ambulance crews are not on strike; they have been suspended. Is he so out of touch with what is happening outside the House that he has not seen today the London ambulance service vehicles taking ambulance calls with signs on the side saying, "Suspended but still working"? Those ambulance crews want to work, but they are being prevented from doing so. The ambulance crews are rightly concerned about the pay offer, not just as a matter of justice for themselves, but because they rightly have long-term fears for the future of the service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, ambulance crews are voting with their feet and leaving the ambulance service. The fact that the London ambulance service, like other ambulance services, is understaffed contributes to the fact that only half our ambulance services meet the Government guidelines for getting to accidents and emergencies on time. The Surrey

1217
ambulance service, which serves the constituency of the Minister for Health, does not meet the Government target for getting to accidents and emergencies on time.
The Secretary of State talked of bonds of common humanity. I hope that he will listen to the case of Mavis Thomas, whose sister came to see me in my surgery. Mavis Thomas, aged 17, had an asthma attack and an ambulance was called. The London ambulance service told me that no vehicles were available at the nearest three ambulance stations. It took half an hour for the nearest ambulance to arrive, and by the time Mavis Thomas reached hospital it was too late to resuscitate her and she died. Understaffing has contributed to the situation where the service cannot provide the ambulance service that we all want to see.
If the Secretary of State had talked to ambulance crews, he would know, as we do, that they do not want to be prevented from working. He would know, as we do, that they do not want to be in an industrial dispute. They do not want to be in political controversy. They want to do their job, and it is that job that the public want them to do. The Government are gambling with people's lives, both currently and in the future. They must agree to arbitration.
The Secretary of State has offered no hope of a solution tonight. The House must vote for arbitration to replace confrontation. If we do, the dispute could be ended tonight.
6.54 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): All of us in the House feel strongly about the important contribution made by the skilled and dedicated service of ambulance staff. None of us wants to underestimate the important part that they play in caring for the sick and the injured, often in stressful and difficult circumstances.
I want to pay a special tribute to the chief ambulance officers and all their staff who are struggling to maintain services to the public. Many have refused to turn their backs on their responsibilities. Members of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel have declared themselves unwilling to countenance action that would hurt patients.
But having said that, I want to make it clear that today we have seen the Opposition in their true colours. It sends a shudder down one's back to think that, were the country ever so unfortunate as to have the Labour party in power again, once again it would be beer and sandwiches and, "Let's sort this out. Let's pay up. Who cares?" The frail and the vulnerable cannot speak. They do not have the strong arm of the trade unions. What they need is the long arm of the Government.
It is an interesting contrast that a week ago, when we were discussing the fundamental element of our primary health care proposals, the contract for the general practitioners, the Opposition Benches were almost empty. But today, with the whiff of industrial action, they come out of their lairs. With the prospect of a picket line, they stir from their lethargy.
Once again, we are reminded of the winter of discontent. Health care is to be decided not by those with the skills to decide on how best to meet patients' needs, not by medical and other practitioners, but by trade union
1218
guidelines, by the COHSE and NUPE convenors, who take it upon themselves to decide whether a case is urgent or needy.
Mr. Nellist rose——
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
Mrs. Bottomley: When we see the Opposition Benches crowded in this way, all of us know full well what the Opposition are really considering.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of argument.
Mr. Corbyn: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have, throughout their speeches, vilified the National Union of Public Employees, which is my union, and at no stage have they been prepared——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be a point of order for me.
Mr. Corbyn: It would be common courtesy to allow a representative of that union to respond on behalf of its members. In those circumstances, is it in order for the Minister to refuse to give way?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that it has not been possible to call the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members, but unless the Minister gives way, I cannot do anything about it.
Mrs. Bottomley: Much has also been said about those who are not involved in emergency work. All of us agree that the nine out of 10 miles that the ambulance crews ride looking after those who are not accident or emergency cases are equally important. They are vulnerable and frail people who need the services that the ambulance crews should properly and rightly provide. Nor will the people of London think much of the argument that ambulance crews who are not carrying out a full day's work should receive their full pay.
The facts speak for themselves. This year the Government have provided the largest ever increase in NHS funds, far in excess of anything that the Labour party would ever have been able to provide. Within those generous resources, it must be right that the NHS management should decide how the resources are to be allocated, which are the cases that should be dealt with and how the rewards should be paid to those who work.
If patients are to experience the high standards of health care that we are determined to provide, Health Service employees must know that we shall protect them from the reckless and excessive claims of trade unions. Patients—the frail and the vulnerable; those who cannot speak, and who have not the strong arm of the unions behind them—must know that they can have confidence in our running of the National Health Service.
We want a speedy resolution of the dispute. We want to see service personnel return to their barracks, and not to be forced to man the ambulance service. And, of course, we want the unions to return to the Whitley council so that we can discuss in detail many of the aspects that have already been raised.
In London, where the thrust of this appalling action is taking place, this year's settlement would ensure that the pay of ambulance staff was well ahead of inflation. I ask

1219
the House to reject the outrageous claims of the Opposition, and to reject the motion. The Government believe in the National Health Service; we believe in those who work for it; and, above all, we believe in the patients. We do not believe that the National Health Service should be run by the excessive claims of irresponsible trade unionists.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 297.

Division No. 386]

[7pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Flannery, Martin

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Flynn, Paul

Allen, Graham

Foster, Derek

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fraser, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Fyfe, Maria

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Galloway, George

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Ashton, Joe

George, Bruce

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

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Grocott, Bruce

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

Boyes, Roland

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Bradley, Keith

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Buchan, Norman

Hoyle, Doug

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hume, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Illsley, Eric

Canavan, Dennis

Ingram, Adam

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Janner, Greville

Cartwright, John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clelland, David

Kennedy, Charles

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Cohen, Harry

Lambie, David

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbyn, Jeremy

Leighton, Ron

Cousins, Jim

Litherland, Robert

Crowther, Stan

Livingstone, Ken

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cummings, John

Loyden, Eddie

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAllion, John

Dalyell, Tam

McAvoy, Thomas

Darling, Alistair

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McFall, John

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

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

Maclennan, Robert

Dobson, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Doran, Frank

McWilliam, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Madden, Max

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eastham, Ken

Mallon, Seamus

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marek, Dr John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fatchett, Derek

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

Martlew, Eric

Fisher, Mark

Maxton, John

1220

Meacher, Michael

Short, Clare

Meale, Alan

Sillars, Jim

Michael, Alun

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morley, Elliot

Snape, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Soley, Clive

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Spearing, Nigel

Mowlam, Marjorie

Steinberg, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Stott, Roger

Murphy, Paul

Strang, Gavin

Nellist, Dave

Straw, Jack

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Patchett, Terry

Turner, Dennis

Pendry, Tom

Vaz, Keith

Pike, Peter L.

Wall, Pat

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wallace, James

Prescott, John

Walley, Joan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Radice, Giles

Wareing, Robert N.

Randall, Stuart

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Redmond, Martin

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Reid, Dr John

Wigley, Dafydd

Richardson, Jo

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wilson, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Winnick, David

Rowlands, Ted

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ruddock, Joan

Worthington, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Frank Cook.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Butler, Chris

Alexander, Richard

Butterfill, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amess, David

Carrington, Matthew

Amos, Alan

Carttiss, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Cash, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chapman, Sydney

Ashby, David

Chope, Christopher

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Baldry, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Batiste, Spencer

Colvin, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Conway, Derek

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Benyon, W.

Cormack, Patrick

Bevan, David Gilroy

Couchman, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Critchley, Julian

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Body, Sir Richard

Curry, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Devlin, Tim

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dorrell, Stephen

Bowis, John

Dover, Den

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Dunn, Bob

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Durant, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dykes, Hugh

Brazier, Julian

Eggar, Tim

Bright, Graham

Emery, Sir Peter

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fallon, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Farr, Sir John

Buck, Sir Antony

Favell, Tony

Budgen, Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Burns, Simon

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Burt, Alistair

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

1221

Fishburn, John Dudley

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lord, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gale, Roger

Maclean, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gill, Christopher

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Madel, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Major, Rt Hon John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Malins, Humfrey

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mans, Keith

Gorst, John

Maples, John

Gow, Ian

Marland, Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Marlow, Tony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gregory, Conal

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Maude, Hon Francis

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grist, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Ground, Patrick

Mellor, David

Grylls, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Miller, Sir Hal

Hague, William

Miscampbell, Norman

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, Sir David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Sir Hector

Hanley, Jeremy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hannam, John

Moore, Rt Hon John

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

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Moss, Malcolm

Harris, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Haselhurst, Alan

Mudd, David

Hayes, Jerry

Neale, Gerrard

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Needham, Richard

Hayward, Robert

Nelson, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Neubert, Michael

Heddle, John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hill, James

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hind, Kenneth

Paice, James

Holt, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Hordern, Sir Peter

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

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

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Portillo, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunter, Andrew

Price, Sir David

Irvine, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Irving, Charles

Redwood, John

Jack, Michael

Renton, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Rhodes James, Robert

Janman, Tim

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rowe, Andrew

Key, Robert

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Ryder, Richard

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knapman, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lang, Ian

Shelton, Sir William

Latham, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

1222

Shersby, Michael

Tredinnick, David

Sims, Roger

Trippier, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

Walden, George

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Stern, Michael

Waller, Gary

Stevens, Lewis

Ward, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Watts, John

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wheeler, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Sumberg, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wiggin, Jerry

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wolfson, Mark

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Yeo, Tim

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thorne, Neil

Thurnham, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mr. David Lightbown

Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the debate that has just ended, the Minister—due either to shortage of time or lack of inclination—was unable to give the House any idea of what is now going to happen in the ambulance dispute, or of whether the intention is to withdraw the troops and negotiate properly with the unions who wish to undertake the emergency services. Is the Minister able to say when the House will be able to return to this important matter so that representatives of the unions concerned—the National Union of Public Employees, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the General, Municipal, and Allied Trades Boilermakers Union—will be able to put their concerns directly to Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise hon. Members on tactics, but there may be opportunities next week, no doubt, to do that.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a short debate. Those hon. Members who were called spoke very briefly. Nevertheless, I am sorry that more hon. Members could not be called.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdrew my name from the list of those who wished to speak in the debate because time was short. However, to elaborate on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), people could die tonight on the streets of London. The Secretary of State has said nothing whatever about what is going to happen——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot continue the debate now.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The International Westminster Bank Bill is to be considered during private business at 7 o'clock and
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member ought to raise that point when we reach private business.

International Westminster Bank Bill (By Order)
[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]
Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
7.15 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will no doubt have seen the report in tonight's Evening Standard that several leading persons in the City have been arrested and that one of the companies involved in the conspiracy to contravene section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 was the National Westminster bank. Two people, who were respectively chairman and chief executive of County NatWest at the time of the Blue Arrow deal, have also been arrested.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is bearing in mind the sub judice rule.
Mr. Cryer: That is the very point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In addition, the current finance director of County NatWest has been charged with conspiracy to defraud. You have raised the very point that I wish to draw to your attention—that as these cases are pending we might come into conflict with the sub judice rule if we were now to consider the International Westminster Bank Bill. In those circumstances, might it not be better to withdraw it? I am also wondering whether the promoters of the Bill have informed you about the newspaper report. As you rightly said, the sub judice rule influences our ability to debate certain parts of the Bill. I should therefore be grateful for your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no representations, nor am I aware of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think that they need impede our consideration of what are, after all, very narrow Lords amendments.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of the amendments relate to the bank's directors. Presumably it will be possible for hon. Members to vote against amendments that relate directly to those directors. It is possible that a number of hon. Members on both sides would like to divide the House.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I went into the Noes Lobby just before the Division and I could find no order of selection of amendments. Do you intend to take together all the amendments to the International Westminster Bank Bill and to have a separate vote on each of them, or do you intend to take each amendment separately and to have a vote after consideration of each amendment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can deal with both of the points that have been raised by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). Our usual practice is to take Lords amendments en bloc, but if hon. Members wish to deal with them separately, the Chair will have to take account

1225
of that wish. I would be willing to hear argument as to why particular amendments should be taken separately instead of taking them all en bloc.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. No objections were raised at that time, but subsequently I put my name to the blocking motion. That was because certain matters came to light. The sub judice rule means that it would be extremely difficult to say anything that did not conflict with what the police are saying. As that action has been taken today, would it not be more acceptable if you were to withdraw the Bill and allowed it to be considered on another occasion when the Director of Public Prosecutions might be in a position to bring charges?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that the Lords amendments before us are narrow and do not seem directly connected with the matters alluded to in these points of order. It might make sense to see how we get on. I remind hon. Members that, although the sub judice law does not apply when the House is considering legislation, the debate has to be confined to the narrow terms of the amendments before us.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the suggestion that we should debate the amendments together, but may we have the opportunity to vote on them separately if that is wished?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will certainly be willing to give a sympathetic response to that, subject to the qualification that, when I consider the amendments carefully, some may be linked or hinge on each other and therefore it may not be appropriate to have a separate decision on every one. If it is appropriate and right hon. and hon. Members wish to have a separate Division, they will not find the Chair unresponsive.
Mr. Redmond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to obtain a copy of the Lords amendments? I have only received the broad brush version from the parliamentary agents and unfortunately I do not have the amendments. I have been to the Vote Office several times. I am a relatively new Member of the House. Could you tell me whether it is possible to obtain a copy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's feigned naivety shocks the Chair. I understand that copies of the amendments should be available and are available in the Vote Office. I hope that the hon Gentleman will be able to get a copy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We ought to re-examine the County NatWest affair and the arrests that have been made more thoroughly. There are hon. Members in the House who have clear connections with that bank.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I urge the hon. Gentleman to follow the example of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and obtain a copy of the amendments
1226
from the Vote Office. When he looks at them, he will realise that it is hard to see any link between the point which he is trying to raise and the Lords amendments.
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is not about the amendments that have come from the other place, but about the Bill. I am saying that there are so many Tory Members who have direct or indirect interests in the National Westminster bank and County Natwest, including the hon. Member for——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members have an obligation to declare their interests. If a question of direct interest arises, doubtless the hon. Members concerned will make their interests known. That does not arise in the Lords amendments before us.
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not just talking about National Westminster bank. What about Blue Arrow? For example, the right hon. Member for Chingford——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what Blue Arrow has to do with the debate——
Mr. Skinner: I will tell you what it has to do with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to give a long explanation of how he thinks Blue Arrow may be connected with it. The motion before the House is that we consider the Lords amendments. I beg the hon. Gentleman to obtain a copy of these amendments, then he will understand that it is difficult to link the matter he is trying to raise with the issue before the House.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is faulty. Today the fraud squad is getting involved with people connected with the higher echelons of that bank, and the Bill was brought to the House by those same people. In view of that fact, I say that the Bill should be abandoned. Let us get rid of it, and bring it back when all this has been settled. Surely that is the point—we are to debate the bank when its top people are up to their necks in it. They have been making money hand over fist with leveraged buy-outs and Conservative Members are involved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters which are admissible in the debate on the Lords amendments. Doubtless right hon. and hon. Members will bear them in mind, but they are not relevant to the debate, or to the decisions which have to be made.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The promoters of the Bill have sent us a letter to explain that the amendments are necessary because Speaker's Counsel and others have suggested that there are errors in the way in which the Bill was originally drafted. To clear up those problems it has had to be drafted again. It seems odd that a respected bank, with experienced legal representatives, should have received advice and presented a Bill to the House which turns out to have been badly drafted. Do you not feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it calls into question the quality of all the advice that the bank has received on a wide range of issues? Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was entitled to raise the issue of——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The quality of the advice which the bank has received is not a matter for me, or for our debate. I suggest that we get on with the debate. The hon. Gentleman correctly identified the matter before the House when he said that the Lords amendments are drafting amendments to correct errors in the Bill. That is the substance of what they amount to.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. We have to consider 10 amendments to a Bill concerned with vesting in National Westminster Bank plc. Until the debate is pursued, I shall not be able to understand the significance of the 10 amendments. However, is it your ruling that, when we debate the amendments, we cannot debate the wider principles involved in the Bill? May it not emerge from the debate on specific amendments that we are concerned with the general nature of the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter correctly—these are essentially drafting amendments to correct part of the Bill. The House will certainly be given the opportunity to discuss and consider each amendment. We had better see how the debate progresses, then perhaps we shall see if the other issues alluded to in the various points of order are relevant.
Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we discover that the 10 amendments have greater import or significance for the general nature of the Bill, will that affect procedure at a later stage? Is that possible?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We should see how we proceed. Let us get on.
Motion made—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]—and Question put, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—
The House divided:Ayes 160, Noes 49.

Division No. 387]

[7.28 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Amess, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Amos, Alan

Colvin, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Couchman, James

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Aspinwall, Jack

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dunn, Bob

Baldry, Tony

Durant, Tony

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dykes, Hugh

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Benyon, W.

Emery, Sir Peter

Bevan, David Gilroy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bowis, John

Fookes, Dame Janet

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Forman, Nigel

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bright, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Buck, Sir Antony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Burt, Alistair

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Butler, Chris

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Carrington, Matthew

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

1228

Ground, Patrick

Mudd, David

Grylls, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hampson, Dr Keith

Paice, James

Harris, David

Patnick, Irvine

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hill, James

Portillo, Michael

Hordern, Sir Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Renton, Tim

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rhodes James, Robert

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Rowe, Andrew

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Ryder, Richard

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Irvine, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jack, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Janman, Tim

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shersby, Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sims, Roger

Kilfedder, James

Stanbrook, Ivor

Kirkwood, Archy

Stern, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Stevens, Lewis

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Knox, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lawrence, Ivan

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lightbown, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lilley, Peter

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lord, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Trippier, David

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Viggers, Peter

Maclean, David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Walden, George

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mans, Keith

Wallace, James

Maples, John

Waller, Gary

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Watts, John

Mates, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wiggin, Jerry

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wilkinson, John

Miller, Sir Hal

Wilshire, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wood, Timothy

Mitchell, Sir David

Monro, Sir Hector

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morrison, Sir Charles

Mr. Roger King and

Moss, Malcolm

Mr. Roger Kanapman.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Meale, Alan

Barron, Kevin

Michael, Alun

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

Morley, Elliot

Boyes, Roland

Nellist, Dave

Caborn, Richard

O'Brien, William

Callaghan, Jim

Pike, Peter L.

Corbyn, Jeremy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cryer, Bob

Quin, Ms Joyce

Cummings, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

Short, Clare

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Dobson, Frank

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Spearing, Nigel

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Vaz, Keith

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Wall, Pat

Harman, Ms Harriet

Wareing, Robert N.

Haynes, Frank

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Wigley, Dafydd

Home Robertson, John

Winnick, David

Hoyle, Doug

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Janner, Greville

Tellers for the Noes:

Lamond, James

Mr. Michael Welsh and

Leighton, Ron

Mr. Martin Redmond.

Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the light of the foregoing points of order, it might be sensible if the House were to discuss the amendments collectively; if hon. Members wish to have separate Divisions on all or some of the amendments, perhaps they would indicate that to the Chair and sympathetic consideration will be given to any such request.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain what procedures the House is adopting? A private Bill is normally steered through the House by an hon. Member, who gives reasons for the amendments. The amendments were moved by the Second Deputy Chairman without any explanation. Will an hon. Member be called to put forward the proposals on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is open to any hon. Member in charge of a private Bill, should he so wish in the circumstances before the House, to volunteer an explanation of the Lords amendments. The House must bear in mind that any hon. Member is entitled to speak only once, other than with the express consent of the House, on any Lords amendment. Therefore, an hon. Member in charge of a Bill may prefer to respond to points made rather than to volunteer a statement at the outset. The Chair will recognise any hon. Member wishing to respond to points raised in the debate. I ask the House to bear in mind that even an hon. Member in charge of a Bill is allowed to speak only once on a Lords amendment.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is early in the evening, but later I may be asked to act as a Teller. What would be the procedure if there were a scuffle in the exit of the lobby? Would I have to leave, protect myself or seek your guidance?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is purely hypothetical. We shall deal with problems when they arise.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There will be a short debate on the amendments. Is an hon. Member present on behalf of the promoters to respond to comments made in the debate? If so, will he be prepared to do so?
Sir Peter Emery: I should be happy to answer any questions put in the debate.
7.45 pm
Mr. Michael Welsh: I should like to speak to a number of the amendments. The first amendment is to clause 4, page 3, line 12. Its purpose is to leave out "having regard to" and to insert "by reason of". I cannot see the reason for the amendment.
Parliamentary agents cost much money. It is their duty to present correct Bills on behalf of the organisations which pay them much money for their work. I cannot foresee any reason for the amendment, unless there is an ulterior motive. If there is, I should like to know. If it is better English, we should like to know; if it is better grammar, we should like to know; and if it is better parliamentary wording, we should like to know. I am sure
1230
that the people who are financing the Bill would like to know why they must again pay parliamentary agents. I do not want to press that to a vote.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are several undercurrents to the debate, one of which is how private business has been conducted in the House? Is it appropriate for hon. Members to have to spend much time on Second Reading and further time in Committee and on Report when the Bill was not presented in its correct form? Is there not a strong argument for not proceeding with these private Bills in this way? A company such as a bank——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the House—the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has the Floor—that we are considering Lords amendments that deal with comparatively narrow issues. The debate must be restricted to that.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order but an intervention. I have explained that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was out of order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will not be tempted down that road. I call the hon. Member for Doncaster, North.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) intervened, but I explained to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North that the points that he made would not be relevant in the debate.
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that there is an undercurrent to the debate, but it is more like an overdraft.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is well versed in these matters, so I am sure that he will give a good and lengthy reply to the debate and explain the reason for the Lords amendments.
I should like to speak to the amendment to clause 4, page 3, line 14. This amendment is serious, especially in the light of certain things that happened in the City today. The amendment aims to insert the words
"in the opinion of the directors of the Bank".
Without the amendment, the Bill reads,
"in pursuance of a requirement made under subsection (2) above should be later than the appointed day".
Why insert
"in the opinion of the directors of the Bank"
in the Bill? It is not necessary, as today's events show.
Mr. Cryer: Does not that amendment and the amendment to leave out "having regard to" and insert "by reason o' mean that the directors can set aside the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom with respect to vesting property? Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on today's circumstances and the extra powers that the amendments appear to confer on the directors by setting aside the law?
Mr. Welsh: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my notice. We are told that the amendments are narrow. but sometimes they can be dangerous. I like to think that, in discussing such a Bill, we aim to protect everyone, especially those who invest. We are talking about pension funds and so on and I cannot understand how these measures can protect them in any way. I am not saying anything about the activities of the directors. That matter is sub judice and has nothing to do with me. However, everything is not right with the bank at present.
The Chairman of Ways and Means said that he would consider Members' wishes on any important issues on which heads should be counted.
Mr. Skinner: The first amendment is very wide. It would leave out "having regard to" the law of any country and insert "by reason of'. Insertion of "by reason of" will mean that the law is binding. For example, a person who has money invested in the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man or some other offshore outfit has to take account of the binding law. Suppose that that person had made enough money and shared it with Ken Dodd, or someone else, and decided to put some money in Poland because some idiot had said, "Poland is a decent place. It is changing." Suppose the business were subsidised to the hilt and someone said, "Put some of the NatWest money in Poland". I can imagine some Conservative Members saying, "Hold on. Can we be sure that our money will be sound with Jaruzelski and Lech Walesa and the Pope?" That person would have to say, "Just a minute. This is binding." Originally, it was a matter of "having regard to", so the directors could say that they were only "having regard to" the law of any dodgy country and its investments. If the amendment is carried and "by reason of is inserted, they will be tied hand and foot. As has been said, this is a narrow amendment. That means that an investor can either forget such an idea or be tied to a country. Just imagine having money in the——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough for an intervention.
Mr. Skinner: We shall come to it later. It is a good seam of coal.
Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping in his usual shy and reserved way. It is good of him to come to the aid of an ordinary Back-Bencher who is not as involved as my hon. Friend in every aspect of the House——
Mr. Greg Knight: And in banking.
Mr. Welsh: And in banking. I should declare that I have a bank account with NatWest. I do not understand why—I suppose that it is the same for everyone—but every time my bank manager writes to me, he writes in red ink. He is a Socialist.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member was deflected from his speech by a remark from the Government Benches, but I am sure that he will restrict himself to the amendments.
Mr. Welsh: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Back-Benchers who are not satisfied with the answers that they get from the hon. Member for Honiton may request a vote.
Sir Peter Emery: In an intervention, not a speech, may I point out that the words "having regard to" could be taken to mean that the directors would not take account of all the laws of the countries in which accounts were held. The authorities in those countries might think that that was not fair. The bank wishes to abide by the laws of all the countries in which accounts are held, which is why "by reason or' is to be inserted. The provision
"in the opinion of the directors of the Bank"
is to be inserted so that the vesting day can be varied if certain of the countries in which the accounts are held wish to do so, for reasons of their own. That provision has been made in the Hambros legislation and in another Bill, so it is not that unusual. I hope that my comment helps the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the amendment moves the bank closer to the law. In effect, the Bill provides for a fusion of two banks. One amendment makes it clear that the vesting—which is required by the law which the hon. Member for Honiton claims the bank wishes to recognise—can take place, in the opinion of the directors, on a date later than the vesting day required by law. One amendment says that the directors must abide by the law and another says that the director will have the discretion to avoid it.
Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The banks want to operate within the law, but I am worried about a different issue—whether the directors want to operate within the law. I have been told to limit my remarks to the amendments, which concern the directors. No one can say that directors keep within the law. If they did, there would not have been that raid this morning. Sometimes the banks need to be protected from their directors.
Sir Peter Emery: No directors of NatWest or the International Westminster bank have been affected in any way by today's events. Knowing the hon. Gentleman's desire to be fair, I think that he would not want the statement that he has just made to stand on the record.
Mr. Welsh: I am saying only that the fraud squad has called on some houses, as has happened in other undertakings in the City. I should like to think that all directors had clean hands, but they are raided every other day. If they were all as innocent as the men who drink in workings men's clubs, everything in the City would be lovely. As it is, the banks themselves—never mind the people—may have to be protected against their own directors.
8 pm
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend may recall that when Lloyds promoted a private Bill in 1981 which gave the accounts of Lloyds almost complete immunity from any legal process, we received assurance after assurance that those promoting the Bill were as white as the driven snow and completely without stain on their honour. Yet shortly after the Bill was passed, scandal after scandal piled up in Lloyds. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at assurances with a critical eye?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that we are dealing with Lords amendments and that the debate must be restricted to them. It is not in order to broaden it into a wide debate on banking practice.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that we must find ways and means of sticking to this group of amendments. In this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) is speaking primarily about the two amendments to clause 4. I am sure that you are aware of those important amendments.
The point of order on which I seek clarification is whether my hon. Friend is allowed to speak broadly on the issue. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, the amendments change the relationship of the directors to the country. They cannot just have "regard to" the laws of any country, but must stick to the laws of the country because the amendment seeks to insert "by reason or. The provision becomes binding and it is a wide amendment. My hon. Friend can properly say that the directors must bear in mind the law of the country totally and utterly, as the Prime Minister might say, on a regular basis instead of having a passive affinity with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North is perfectly capable of looking after himself and keeping in order, as I am sure he will.
Mr. Welsh: I am now speaking to the amendment which says;
"in the opinion of the directors of the Bank."
The amendment was tabled as a second thought and it may be dangerous—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to carry on.
Mr. Welsh: The amendment is important with regard to the directors because it is about international deals, not about deals in this country. Every hon. Member has had complaints about an overseas investment that went wrong in Gibraltar, including the hon. Member for Honiton himself. The hon. Member for Honiton may think that I am wrong, but I do not think that we should allow the chance of such events happening again. When we move to a vote later, if you will allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want my head to be counted.
The International Westminster bank will deal with pension funds and it may even deal with miners' pension funds. Things may go wrong and the directors may get into trouble. I am sure that most of the directors are honest, straightforward chaps, but there are always some bad apples in the barrel. If things go wrong, nobody can say that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North did not vote against the amendments. It may not mean a great deal to most hon. Members, but it means a great deal in constituencies like mine, where people are predominantly working class and honest. They like to think that their Members of Parliament try their best to protect everyone. The only way to protect their interests in this House is by a count of heads in a vote.
Mr. Skinner: Before my hon. Friend leaves the amendment dealing with the power of directors, I want to point out that directors, as my hon. Friend knows only too well, have tremendous power. They have more power than
1234
trade union leaders, for example. They do not have to go on strike and they do not bother about ballots when they are asset-stripping or when they have a leveraged buy-out. I want my hon. Friend to turn his attention to the question of directors having that power, which is raised by this amendment rather than later ones, and whether the power should go to the people who work in the banks by means of a ballot. We hear much about ballots.
We should oppose this amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend has a different view, but I believe that it should be opposed on the ground that it does not compel directors to concede a ballot to the people who work in the bank. If we developed that argument, we might be able to see a bit more light at the end of the National Westminster tunnel.
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend is right; he has made a vital point. However, as you drew to my attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must confine our remarks to the Bill and the amendments. There are many other matters that I should like to mention, and many other hon. Members would like to deal with shortcomings in undertakings outside the City, but we must stick to the amendments.
I have a question about another amendment that may be important and the hon. Member for Honiton may be able to explain how it will protect people. The amendment applies to clause 5 and seeks to leave out
"whether made before, on or after"
and insert "made before." Perhaps I should not be, but I am suspicious by nature and I cannot help it. I am suspicious when I see an amendment that means that if anyone signs something on that day or after that day, it is not covered by the Bill.
Mr. Skinner: Which amendment is that?
Mr. Welsh: The amendment applies to line 42 of clause 5. I suspect that it seeks to give the directors powers that they do not deserve to have. The clause was written by the parliamentary draftsmen and did not come off the top of someone's head. The draftsmen must have phrased the clause in that way for good reasons. It may have been to protect investors on the day of vestment or after. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton can explain why the promoters came to the conclusion that the clause should be amended. Will anybody suffer from that amendment, or are people being protected? My innocence in these matters can easily be seen. All I want is an explanation of the amendment so that we can study it in some depth.
I want to deal next with some other serious amendments that seek to remove words from the Bill. One amendment that applies to line 10 of clause 6 seeks to leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done". There must be a good reason for that. An identical amendment applies to line 14. Perhaps the original words were not parliamentary language. If they were not parliamentary language, they should not have been included in the Bill in the first place because the parliamentary agents drew it up. If the amendments could cause damage or hurt people, we are obliged to vote on them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton can give me a reasonable answer that might increase my knowledge of international banking.
I am also concerned about the amendment to clause 11: 'page 6, leave out from ("1963") in line 26 to ("as") in line 27. There must be a reason for this amendment. Why were those words included in the Bill originally, if they must be withdrawn now? The important point relates to the Stock Transfer Act 1963. The Bill refers to the Stock Exchange

1235
(Completion of Bargains) Act 1976. That has been removed by the amendment. The words were included in good faith.
Another of the Lords amendments relates to clause 15, page 7——
Mr. Skinner: The amendment to clause 11 leaves out the words from "1963". That was a pretty good year. It was Profumo year. That was when Macmillan got prostate trouble. He had a diplomatic illness and a new Prime Minister was needed. I can see 1989 or 1990 being a replica of 1963. The Prime Minister will get a diplomatic illness and some grey-suited men will come along and say, "Enough's enough. You had better get off." The Prime Minister will be able to travel round the world and deposit her money in the International Westminster bank in all the countries to which the Bill refers——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North is perfectly in order. He is developing his arguments which are in order. The only thing that worries me is that every time he is interrupted, he is invited to go out of order.
Mr Welsh: Well, 1963 may have been a nice year, but it was not a very good year for me. I had an accident in a colliery after I returned from Ruskin college. I remember it very well.
Another of the Lords amendments amends clause 15. It states:
'Clause 15, page 8 leave out from ("(b)") in line 33 to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("the reference in subsection (3) of Section 11 (Evidence of Vesting) of this Act to the Stock Transfer Act 1963 shall include a reference to the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963;")'
The Bill as it stands reads very differently. Why should the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 be excluded'? Will somebody tell me why?
Mr. Skinner: I will tell my hon. Friend why. The National Westminster bank is experiencing serious trouble at the moment and many of its leading lights have been caught by the fraud squad. Some of them have been handcuffed and put inside. However, very few are actually done. The law in this country is supposed to be straight and above board for everyone. Most of the people who get done here are those who get a couple of bob out of the Department of Social Security. The directors and the people in the City usually get away with it.
8.15 pm
Why is the reference to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 left out of the Bill? It is excluded because it refers to the amount of money being made by the people who run the bank. The last thing that they want people to know is that the Bill contains an opportunity for completion of bargains on the stock exchange. That does not apply to many people who invest in the National Westminster bank; it is all about the directors making a small fortune——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will stick to the amendment, as he has been doing.
Mr. Welsh: The amendment to page 8 of clause 15 is narrow, but very important. I am speaking to the amendments, but I understand the feeling of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who may be involved
1236
in these matters. I am not used to dealing with finance. I still give my wife £25 a week and spoil her like most men spoil their wives. That is as far as I go in finance.
Perhaps the reason for the amendment is that the parliamentary agents are correcting an error. The boys in the City may think that the parliamentary agents are all right, but they are tying their hands.
Why must we drag Northern Ireland into this? The Bill refers to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. That is removed from the Bill and substituted with the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. What is so sacrosanct about the 1963 Act? No one seems to want the other Acts. There must be an answer for this.
Mr. Skinner: There might be a clue here. Although I might never be in the position of introducing a Bill on behalf of a bank,—I am playing the devil's advocate here—I would want to consider what happened in Northern Ireland a few years ago. I would remember De Lorean, the money, corruption and fiddling. Two Governments allowed large sums of taxpayers' money to be salted away. We had better make sure——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North is being as good as gold. He is speaking to the amendments. Unfortunately, he continues to be corrupted by interventions that have nothing to do with the amendments. I hope that all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will allow the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, who is perfectly in order, to develop his arguments.
Mr. Welsh: I will stick to the amendments because that is my job. However, I always support people who want more freedom. I will follow your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Why is the 1963 Act sacrosanct? Why is nothing else allowed? Why has it been taken out? There may be good reasons for that, but as a layman I can see no good reason for its removal other than for ulterior motives. No other Act is entertained even though there may be other reasonable Acts.
Sir Peter Emery: It really is quite simple. The Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 is material only insofar as it amends the Stock Transfer Act 1963. Accordingly, it would be best to omit altogether the reference to that Act because the 1963 Act applies. The amendment to clause 15 is tabled for the same reason. It refers to the 1976 Act and, therefore, to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The words are to be omitted because they are unnecessary and for no other reason.
Mr. Welsh: I cannot say that the parliamentary agents are incompetent. I do not know any of those gentlemen, but I know that they are well-trained and reasonably efficient. Many of the amendments drafted by civil servants are foolish, but that is not the case with parliamentary agents. They are well paid and efficient. They may have included the amendments as a long-stop.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend seems to accept that parliamentary agents cannot do anything wrong. I cannot accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, people make mistakes. On the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which we are not discussing now, the parliamentary agents

1237
did a far from splendid job, and we tried to amend that Bill. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will rephrase what he said about parliamentary agents. They can do only what they are instructed to do and they were instructed by people whom the hon. Member for Honiton knows very well.
My hon. Friend should not think of the parliamentary agents as golden angels. He must think about the City of London asking how it can make more money. That is the principle behind this and it is why the amendments have been tabled. Somebody along the way has said, "We had better amend the Bill in the House of Lords where they are all dropping off to sleep. Do not do it in the House of Commons because somebody might spot it. If we do that we can make a bit on the side." Money is the reason. The parliamentary agents are not acting alone. Their mentors have said, "Get that changed and sharp".
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a good point. That is a possibility, but we cannot say that it happens for sure. However, I have some sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
There is an amendment to an amendment—I thought that that was impossible. Therefore, no one is too sure about this. I do not know too much about finance but I have my suspicions.
Mr. Skinner: It is obvious that my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about the amendments. I have already suggested one possible reason for the amendments, but there is another. My hon. Friend says that he does not know about finance but he is not kidding me. He is the treasurer of the all-party group of non-profit-making clubs. Therefore, he is in charge of about threepence ha'penny a week.
Suppose that my first fear—that they are doing it because the bosses are telling them—is not correct. Let us suppose that the parliamentary agents are making money on commission and on the basis of work done in the same way as lawyers—which is really what they are. Somebody may say, "If we can slip in a dozen amendments in the Lords, it will increase our commission". This is the lesser of my two proposals. However, a Machiavellian parliamentary agent may have said, "The longer it goes, the more money I make." Therefore, they might not be too keen on the Bill receiving a speedy passage. My hon. Friend likes the parliamentary agents, but I wonder whether he would favour my second proposition.
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a point. I do not know how parliamentary agents are paid, but their job is to work on private Bills. The sooner such Bills are abolished the better. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, they include things knowing they will have to amend them later. That happens with many legal people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may have a point, but we do not know.
On the removal of the references to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 and the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 the parliamentary agents may be creating a loophole that we have not spotted. Those references should remain in the Bill.
Mr. Skinner: That is too Machiavellian. I do not believe that parliamentary agents would do that. They are into money, and there is also the second proposition that I have described. There is a third possible explanation but it is the least favoured of my ideas. A Left-wing parliamentary agent may have been listening to the debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. He may think that he can help by trying to stop the Bill which will create a massive balance of payments problem for Britain because of the imported coal. He may say, "I will draft some esoteric amendments so that the Bill can be dragged out." That may be going too far, but it is more plausible than my hon. Friend's argument.
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a valid point, but I am describing what has happened. We have been told by the sponsors of the Bill that the words to be omitted are not necessary and do not do anything. If that is the case, why did the parliamentary agents include them?
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend must be careful. I do not think that the agents wanted to include the amendments. We have been given a document that tells us why the Bill's promoter wants us to continue with the Bill. If my hon. Friend looks at that, he will see that the recommendation for the change came about as a result of consultation with Counsel to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and includes alterations agreed with Counsel to Mr. Speaker. I am puzzled. I understand the role that those two people perform in the House, but why were the recommendations suggested to the Counsel to Mr. Speaker not put forward in this place before the Bill went to the House of Lords?
Those individuals must have recommended alterations for good reasons. Can my hon. Friend explain what those reasons were and the implications of forcing them on the parliamentary agents who may not have wanted to take up more time by bringing the Bill back? They must be important because I am sure that officers of the House would not want to delay the Bill without good reason.
Mr. Welsh: If that is correct and the bank sponsors have no desire for the amendments, it is all the more reason why the Bill should be left as it is. If someone else wants the Bill amended, we should vote for the Bill as it is written. There might be good reason to leave the Bill as it is to protect people when others may not want them to be protected.
8.30 pm
Mr. Skinner: There may be a simple answer. We have a Bill that is not well written. It has been produced by lawyers who earn £100,000 a year. We know what it is like as they want 20 quid to write a letter for our constituents. The Bill is drafted and it is a bit cock-eyed, so someone comes along and says that it must be altered. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked why those alterations were not made in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, the answer is that they can slip such changes through in the House of Lords because no one can be bothered. People up there fall asleep and it is conceivable that that is why those changes were made in the House of Lords late on. I have put forward all sorts of propositions to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North, but perhaps it is just a simple matter of neglect. The i's must be dotted and the t's crossed somewhere, so the Bill is taken to the House of Lords.
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a point. If that has happened, it is all the more reason why we should vote against the amendments. It means that someone has been conniving, for want of a better word. We are not here to do such things. We are here to be honest and to protect people, even investors.
I do not believe that the amendments should be accepted by the House. The hon. Member for Honiton may say that they have the same purpose. If that is true, why cannot we have two Acts? There would be nothing wrong with double protection.
I have spoken on some of the amendments which I consider important. When the time comes, I should like to think that we could vote separately on the amendment relating to clause 4, page 3, line 14,
"in the opinion of the directors of the Bank"
I would also like to think that votes on amendments to clause 11, page 6, and clause 15, page 8, could be taken together.
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) on speaking for nearly an hour about fairly precise amendments. I shall try to answer his questions clearly in the hope that that will assist the House to obtain answers about the amendments, which are fairly narrow.
The purpose of the amendments is to improve the clarity of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have suggested that something is wrong because parliamentary agents could not get the Bill 100 per cent. right when it was produced for First Reading and Committee. Few Bills produced by Governments of either party do not require some amendment or correction. There are few parliamentary agents who get everything right the first time. I believe that it is correct—I have spent some time in the Procedure Committee to try to ensure this—that we should spend the right amount of time to make legislation as clear and as simple as humanly possible.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 1 of the Bill, which says:
"And whereas the objects of this Act cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament"..
The first amendment refers to things that go on in other countries. Why do we have to have the authority of this House to do something that affects other countries? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have had many problems with private legislation? I believe that there is a strong case to take such legislation away from the House. I wonder whether the International Westminster Bank Bill should be considered at all. Why is it absolutely essential—the preamble to the Bill says that it is—for the little section that relates to having regard to the laws of other countries to he included in the Bill?
Sir Peter Emery: The amendment, which leaves out "having regard to" and inserts "by reason or, ensures that the laws of any other country are abided by absolutely.
Mr. Cryer: Because of the shoddy directors at NatWest.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does himself no credit by making remarks of that kind.
The Bill amalgamates, for the convenience of the bank and of this country in its financial dealings, the International Westminster bank, which is operating outside this country, and the National Westminster bank,
1240
which operates in this country. The purpose is to bring the two organisations together. The laws of the overseas country in which the bank is operating will be abided by. There is no suggestion in the Bill that those laws should be overridden and there is no desire on the part of the National Westminster bank to do that.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Some countries are known as "bank havens" and there is little control, if any, over their financial transactions. If the International Westminster bank operated in such countries, it would have to be subject to our laws or investors might lose their money—as happened in Gibraltar. Has that been taken into account when discussing the operations of National Westminster and International Westminster?
Sir Peter Emery: The bank has taken that into consideration. Obviously, it wants the most stringent regulations to apply overseas as would apply here. That does not mean that the bank would seek to override the laws of another nation. It is to make that absolutely clear that the amendments have been tabled. The directors of the bank have sought the amendments to ensure that if, when dealing with its banking operations in another country, it was decided that the vesting date in that country should not be the same as for the whole of the Bill, it could be delayed. There is nothing new about that and I have already told the House that that happened with two previous banking Bills.
Questions have also been asked about the amendment relating to clause 5, page 3, line 34. The words in the brackets are unnecessary and slightly misleading. They highlight the probate of a will without referring to the alternative possibility of letters of administration. Such letters of administration may be annexed to a will or issued when the deceased has omitted to appoint any executors of his will. Therefore, those letters ensure that the matter is dealt with.
I come to clause 11, page 6, lines 26 and 27 and clause 15, page 8, lines 33 and 38. I have already said that the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 is material only in that it amends the Stock Transfer Act 1963.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Serjeant at Arms is not in his place. I have never known this in my several years as a Member here and I wondered whether it was right for the House to continue when the Serjeant at Arms had been drawn away to some important matter. If any hon. Member were to become terribly unruly—not I, of course—there would be a problem and I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might like to consider this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is proceeding in good order and I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms is within the precincts.
Sir Peter Emery: As the amendments to the 1963 Act become part of the Act there is no need for reference to be made to the 1976 Act and it would be misleading to include it. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North has already explained why it is unnecessary. Therefore, it has been deleted and that applies equally to the Stock Transfer (Northern Ireland) Act 1963.
The group of amendments attempts to clarify the Bill, make it more easily understood and allow the National Westminster bank to operate as efficiently as humanly

1241
possible after the amalgamation of its two organisations. That will benefit the country. An extensive amount of work is carried out by this company internationally, and the Bill will help this nation's economy. I should have thought that the House would want to hasten the Bill through. Most organisations would not have to come to the House if they want to bring together their overseas and domestic sections. The Bill is necessary because we are dealing with a bank which is structured under the Banking Act 1987.
The House will divide if necessary, but I hope that it will give a fair wind to the National Westminster bank in trying to do what it can financially for this country's benefit.
Mr. Roger Knapman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 36.

Division No. 389]

[8.53 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Durant, Tony

Amos, Alan

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Fookes, Dame Janet

Benyon, W.

Forman, Nigel

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gale, Roger

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boswell, Tim

Gill, Christopher

Bowis, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Harris, David

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

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hayward, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Holt, Richard

Couchman, James

Hordern, Sir Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

1243

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Renton, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Rhodes James, Robert

Irvine, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Jack, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Janman, Tim

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sims, Roger

Kilfedder, James

Squire, Robin

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lightbown, David

Stern, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maclean, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Viggers, Peter

Miller, Sir Hal

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waller, Gary

Monro, Sir Hector

Widdecombe, Ann

Mudd, David

Wilkinson, John

Neubert, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Patnick, Irvine

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. Roger King and

Porter, David (Waveney)

Mr. Roger Knapman.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Meale, Alan

Barron, Kevin

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Nellist, Dave

Boateng, Paul

O'Brien, William

Boyes, Roland

Pike, Peter L.

Cryer, Bob

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Vaz, Keith

Dobson, Frank

Wall, Pat

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Haynes, Frank

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Martin Redmond

Lamond, James

Mr. Michael Welsh.

Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is customary to put all the Lords amendments together——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of that reaction, I think that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) lays particular emphasis on the second amendment——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it; I shall put the Question on the first.
Lords amendment: In clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out "having regard to" and insert "by reason of".
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 104,Noes27.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Have I the agreement of the House to put the remaining amendments——
Hon. Members: No.
Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, leave out from
"capacity" in line 34 to "and" in line 35.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Mr. Harry Barnes(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that we are voting on the third amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I read out the wrong amendment. We should be voting on clause 4, page 3, line 14.
Mr. Barnes: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A problem has arisen with the material that the promoters have supplied to us. Normally a set of amendments would be supplied with amendment numbers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.
Lords amendment: In clause 4, page 3, line 14, at end insert
"in the opinion of the directors of the Bank".
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 23.

Division No. 390]

[9.3 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Amos, Alan

Hunter, Andrew

Arbuthnot, James

Irvine, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jack, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Janman, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Baldry, Tony

Kilfedder, James

Benyon, W.

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Lightbown, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lilley, Peter

Boswell, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bowis, John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Maclean, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brazier, Julian

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Mans, Keith

Buck, Sir Antony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Miller, Sir Hal

Carrington, Matthew

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Chapman, Sydney

Monro, Sir Hector

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

Moss, Malcolm

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Mudd, David

Colvin, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Paice, James

Couchman, James

Patnick, Irvine

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Porter, David (Waveney)

Durant, Tony

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Emery, Sir Peter

Renton, Tim

Favell, Tony

Rhodes James, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ryder, Richard

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Gale, Roger

Sims, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gill, Christopher

Stern, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Stevens, Lewis

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Summerson, Hugo

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ground, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Viggers, Peter

Hague, William

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Waller, Gary

Harris, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Wilkinson, John

Hayward, Robert

Wood, Timothy

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Holt, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hordern, Sir Peter

Mr. Roger King and

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Mr. Roger Knapman.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Morley, Elliot

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

O'Brien, William

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Redmond, Martin

Barron, Kevin

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

Skinner, Dennis

Boyes, Roland

Vaz, Keith

Cryer, Bob

Wall, Pat

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

Wallace, James

Dixon, Don

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Haynes, Frank

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Harry Barnes and

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Alan Meale.

Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, I will now put the remaining Lords amendments.
Hon. Members: No.
Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, leave out from "capacity" in line 34 to "and" in line 35.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 22.

Division No. 391]

[9.15 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Durant, Tony

Amos, Alan

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Favell, Tony

Benyon, W.

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gill, Christopher

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Ground, Patrick

Burt, Alistair

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoin)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Chapman, Sydney

Hayward, Robert

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

Holt, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Colvin, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Couchman, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

1246

Irvine, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jack, Michael

Renton, Tim

Janman, Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ryder, Richard

Kilfedder, James

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lightbown, David

Sims, Roger

Lilley, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Viggers, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Miller, Sir Hal

Waller, Gary

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Widdecombe, Ann

Monro, Sir Hector

Wilkinson, John

Mudd, David

Wood, Timothy

Neubert, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Patnick, Irvine

Mr. Roger King and

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. Roger Knapman.

Porter, David (Waveney)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Morgan, Rhodri

Barron, Kevin

Morley, Elliot

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

O'Brien, William

Boyes, Roland

Redmond, Martin

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Vaz, Keith

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

Wall, Pat

Dixon, Don

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Haynes, Frank

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Harry Barnes and

McFall, John

Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.
Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, line 42, leave out
"whether made before, on or after"
and insert "made before".
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 21.

Division No. 392]

[9.27 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Amos, Alan

Hunter, Andrew

Arbuthnot, James

Irvine, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jack, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Janman, Tim

Benyon, W.

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Bevan, David Gilroy

Kilfedder, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Boswell, Tim

Lightbown, David

Bowis, John

Lilley, Peter

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Brazier, Julian

Maclean, David

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Burt, Alistair

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Mans, Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Miller, Sir Hal

Colvin, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Monro, Sir Hector

Couchman, James

Moss, Malcolm

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mudd, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Neubert, Michael

Durant, Tony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Eggar, Tim

Paice, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Favell, Tony

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Renton, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Rhodes James, Robert

French, Douglas

Ryder, Richard

Gale, Roger

Sackville, Hon Tom

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Gill, Christopher

Sims, Roger

Goodlad, Alastair

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Squire, Robin

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Ground, Patrick

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Grylls, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hague, William

Viggers, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Wallace, James

Harris, David

Waller, Gary

Hayward, Robert

Widdecombe, Ann

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Wilkison, John

Hind, Kenneth

Wood, Timothy

Holt, Richard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Mr. Roger King, and

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. Roger Knapman.

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

NOES

Abbort, Ms Diane

Haynes, Frank

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Home Robertson, John

Barron, Kevin

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

McFall, John

Boyes, Roland

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Meale, Alan

Cryer, Bob

Nellist, Dave

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

O'Brien, William

1248

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Vaz, Keith

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Wall, Pat

Mr. Michel Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees——
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Object.
Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, line 44, after "and" insert
"any will made on or after the appointed day, being in either case a will".
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 29
Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House I shall put——
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I will put the Question on the next amendment.
Lords amendment: In clause 6, page 4, line 10 leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done".
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 22.

Division No. 393]

[9.39 pm

AYES

Amos, Alan

Holt, Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow VI)

Benyon, W.

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hunter, Andrew

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Irvine, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jack, Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Janman, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Brazier, Julian

Kilfedder, James

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Buck, Sir Antony

Lightbown, David

Burns, Simon

Lilley, Peter

Burt, Alistair

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Mans, Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Miller, Sir Hal

Colvin, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Moate, Roger

Couchman, James

Monro, Sir Hector

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Neubert, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Durant, Tony

Patnick, Irvine

Eggar, Tim

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Emery, Sir Peter

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Favell, Tony

Renton, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Rhodes James, Robert

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Fishburn, John Dudley

Sims, Roger

Fookes, Dame Janet

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Freeman, Roger

Squire, Robin

Gale, Roger

Stanbrook, Ivor

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Gill, Christopher

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Viggers, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Ground, Patrick

Wallace, James

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Widdecombe, Ann

Hague, William

Wilkinson, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Wood, Timothy

Hanley, Jeremy

Younger, Rt Hon George

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hayward, Robert

Mr. Roger King and

Hind, Kenneth

Mr. Roger Knapman.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dixon, Don

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dobson, Frank

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Barron, Kevin

Haynes, Frank

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

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Boateng, Paul

Home Robertson, John

Boyes, Roland

Hoyle, Doug

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Dicks, Terry

Janner, Greville

1249

McFall, John

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Vaz, Keith

Meale, Alan

Wall, Pat

Morgan, Rhodri

Nellist, Dave

Tellers for the Noes:

O'Brien, William

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Mr. Michael welsh.

Skinner, Dennis

Division No. 394]

[9.50 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Amos, Alan

Jack, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Janman, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Kilfedder, James

Baldry, Tony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Benyon, W.

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Lightbown, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lilley, Peter

Boswell, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Maclean, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brazier, Julian

Mans, Keith

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Burns, Simon

Miller, Sir Hal

Burt, Alistair

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Moate, Roger

Carrington, Matthew

Monro, Sir Hector

Chapman, Sydney

Neubert, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Colvin, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Portillo, Michael

Couchman, James

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Redwood, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Renton, Tim

Durant, Tony

Rhodes James, Robert

Emery, Sir Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Favell, Tony

Ryder, Richard

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Sims, Roger

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Fishburn, John Dudley

Squire, Robin

Freeman, Roger

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gale, Roger

Stern, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stevens, Lewis

Gill, Christopher

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Gritfiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Griftiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Viggers, Peter

Ground, Patrick

Walker, Bill (Tside North)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Wallace, James

Hague, William

Waller, Gary

Hanley, Jeremy

Widdecombe, Ann

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Wilkinson, John

Harris, David

Wood, Timothy

Hayward, Robert

Younger, Rt Hon George

Holt, Richard

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. Michael Irvine and

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mr. Roger Knapman.

1250

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McFall, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Meale, Alan

Barron, Kevin

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Nellist, Dave

Boyes, Roland

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cryer, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

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

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Dixon, Don

Wall, Pat

Haynes, Frank

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Tellers for the Noes:

Home Robertson, John

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Michael Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.
It being after Ten o'clock, consideration of Lords amendments stood adjourned.

International Westminster Bank Bill (By Order)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prisons (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords] and the Opticians Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]
  The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 25.
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  International Westminster Bank Bill
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I will put the remaining Lords amendments together.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.
  Lords amendment: In clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done".
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 24.

  Division No. 396]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Amos, Alan

  Jack, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Janman, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Baldry, Tony

  Kilfedder, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Benyon, W.

  Knapman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Boswell, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Lilley, Peter

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Mans, Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Colvin, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Couchman, James

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Portillo, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Redwood, John

  Favell, Tony

  Renton, Tim

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  French, Douglas

  Sims, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Squire, Robin

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Stevens, Lewis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Ground, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Hague, William

  Waller, Gary

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Wilkinson, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Wood, Timothy

  Harris, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Hind, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Holt, Richard

  Mr. Michael Irvine and

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Mr. Robert Hayward.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Cummings, John

  1253

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

  Nellist, Dave

  Dixon, Don

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Home Robertson, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale ot Glam)

  McFall, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Meale, Alan

  Mr. Michael Welsh and

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the remaining Lords amendments.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There have now been about nine votes on amendments to this Bill, and another vote on the business of the House. If you look at the number of votes that have been cast from both sides of the House throughout the Divisions on the amendments, you will note that they have remained relatively consistent.
  May I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker? Have we not now reached a stage where it would be appropriate for Members to vote in their places, standing up and sitting down, as has been done previously? It is clear that a great deal of time is being wasted for reasons that have nothing to do with the business before us.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Although he must not argue it, I can tell him and the House that I am not prepared to consider his suggestion.
  Lords amendment: In clause 11, page 6, leave out from "1963" in line 26 to "as" in line 27.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 26.

  Division No. 397]

  [10.27 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Favell, Tony

  Amos, Alan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  French, Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Benyon, W.

  Gill, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bright, Graham

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  1254

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Richard

  Kilfedder, James

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Squire, Robin

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lightbown, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lilley, Peter

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thorne, Neil

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Trippier, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Renton, Tim

  Mr. Michael Irvine and

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mr. Robert Hayward.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McFall, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Barron, Kevin

  Meale, Alan

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Boyes, Roland

  Nellist, Dave

  Cryer, Bob

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cummings, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dewar, Donald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Foster, Derek

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mr. Michael Welsh and

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.
  Lords amendment: In clause 15, page 8, leave out line 7.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 27.

  Divlsion No. 398]

  [10.40 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amos, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Eggar, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Favell, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ground, Patrick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hague, William

  1255

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Harris, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Portillo, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Redwood, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Renton, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Sims, Roger

  Jack, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jackson, Robert

  Squire, Robin

  Janman, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stevens, Lewis

  Kilfedder, James

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Knapman, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Thorne, Neil

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Trippier, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Lightbown, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Waller, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Michael Irvine and

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Mr. Robert Hayward.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McFall, John

  Barron, Kevin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  Meale, Alan

  Boyes, Roland

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cryer, Bob

  Brien, William

  Cummings, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dewar, Donald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

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

  Foster, Derek

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mr. Michael Welsh and

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment: in clause 15, page 8 leave out from "(b)" in line 33 to "and" in line 38 and insert
  "the reference in subsection (3) of Section 11 (Evidence of Vesting) of this Act to the Stock Transfer Act 1963 shall include a reference to the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963;".
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 27

  Division No. 399]

  [10.52 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amos, Alan

  Benyon, W.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  1256

  Boswell, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Janman, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Brazier, Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Bright, Graham

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Knapman, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lightbown, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Chapman, Sydney

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Colvin, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Moate, Roger

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Couchman, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Patnick, Irvine

  Durant, Tony

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Eggar, Tim

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Favell, Tony

  Redwood, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Renton, Tim

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gill, Christopher

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Sims, Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Ground, Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hague, William

  Thorne, Neil

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Trippier, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Viggers, Peter

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Wallace, James

  Harris, David

  Waller, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Wheeler, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Holt, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Wood, Timothy

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Mr. Robert Hayward and

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Mr. Michael Irvine.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  McFall, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Meale, Alan

  Barron, Kevin

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Nellist, Dave

  Boyes, Roland

  O'Brien, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cummings, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dewar, Donald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Foster, Derek

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mr. Martin Redmond and

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Michael Welsh.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Isle of Wight Bill
Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the events that have occurred in connection with the International Westminster Bank Bill will be referred to the Procedure Committee.
11.5 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: We are debating whether the Lords amendments should be now considered——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We will do that once I have had a chance to propose the question.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Mr. Cryer: We should examine the question whether the Lords amendments should be considered. There is no record of the reasons for the amendments, because they were dealt with in an Unopposed Private Bill Committee in another place. There is no record of that, so hon. Members in this place considering legislation that will be binding in law have no reasons for considering the amendments. That is extraordinary in a legislature which I thought prided itself on the degree of scrutiny and on the availability of the records when hon. Members debate issues.
I should have thought that on the night when the Berlin wall is being removed and the gates are open we should not tolerate taking amendments from a section of the legislature that is operating behind closed doors. Surely we need more open examination. On that basis we should not consider the amendments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend recapitulate for a moment? I understand that the record of the proceedings on this private Bill are not available and were dealt with behind closed doors. This is the so-called Mother of Parliaments which is supposed to spread its wings to the rest of the Commonwealth and the world. On the eve of televising Parliament, are we supposed to consider amendments that were dealt with in a hole-in-the-corner manner? The Prime Minister is supposed to be saving the world, but we are supposed to deal with the amendments in this cock-eyed fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Will he raise these issues with his Committee?
Mr. Cryer: I wish that I could——
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is the view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), can you confirm whether the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill will be treated in the same way when it comes before the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One Bill at a time.
Mr. Cryer: I can assure all hon. Members that my speech extends far and wide. I should have thought that it was very important that this legislature should exercise its scrutiny. We do not do that often enough. Certain Acts that give people powers go through far too easily. We
1258
authorise huge sums of money on the nod. We must look at ourselves, and the procedures relating to Bills such as this deserve to be scrutinised.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said on a point of order that the proceedings on the International Westminster Bank Bill should be sent to the Procedure Committee. I do not object to that proposal. We have a new Leader of the House who is fresh from travels abroad. I know that he will take that suggestion into account when considering whether we can improve our procedures.
We are considering amendments from a non-elected body further down the Corridor and we should have a record of the arguments advanced. The other place is accountable to no one, but when it makes decisions on amendments we are not given its reasons for so doing.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This Bill deals with important civil rights issues—the rights of people to assemble freely for whatever purpose, and the rights of others not to be caused a nuisance by those assembled. It is a difficult matter and it should be dealt with not in a private Bill, but in national legislation. We should consider how to guarantee the right of the individual to enjoy himself without at the same time upsetting other people. We must get the balance right. The way in which the Bill has been changed in the Lords alters the subtle balance between the rights of the individual and——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting on to the substance of the amendment which we have not yet reached.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), as I want to discuss national legislation and whether we should deal with the assembly of people in a private Bill.
I do not dissent from the efforts of a local authority to try to obtain powers, but my hon. Friend is correct that what may be a problem for one authority may well be a problem for many other authorities. Surely that problem should be the subject of national legislation rather than private legislation, especially as we cannot obtain a copy of the reasons put forward by the Lords for the amendments. The Bill concerns civil liberties and that is why it is important that we should have those reasons.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I thought that my hon. Friend would have said something about what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said. He threatened the Opposition about the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. I resent such threats. The Government have been threatening us for the past fortnight. We are doing the job right, but they do not like that.
Mr. Cryer: I was appalled by the implication behind the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). I thought, however, that he meant that he intended to defy the Tory Whips in future and to ignore them when they tell him to keep his mouth shut hour after hour because that is convenient for the Government. I thought that the hon. Gentleman meant that he would make a judgment when the Whips tell him that he must stay here so that there are 100 hon. Members to shuffle through the Lobby to vote for a closure.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended to exercise this scrutiny and to use his mind as he is entitled to do as

1259
a Member of Parliament. I did not realise that he was attempting to blackmail other hon. Members. If that was his intention, it would imply a serious potential breach of privilege. I would be unable to raise that attempted breach of privilege on the Floor. I would have to write to Mr. Speaker and it would have to be taken up by the Committee of Privileges.
I would hesitate to take such action in the ordinary interchange of debate. If the attempt at intimidation was real, however, and if it was an attempt to prevent me from speaking, that would be an attack on one of the important rules of Parliament—that hon. Members cannot be intimidated by threats to prevent them from speaking in this Chamber. That is an important protection for our constituents so that local authorities——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I shall protect him should the need arise. We should return to the motion.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have assured me that such an implied threat will not get anywhere in the Chamber so long as people like you are in the Chair.
Mr. Haynes: It took my hon. Friend's comments to draw the Chair. Does he not agree that the occupant of the Chair should have charged the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) when the intimidation occurred.
11.15 pm
Mr. Cryer: The intervention from the Chair was most appropriate and helpful. My remarks drew it out, and I am grateful for it. I take a charitable view of Conservative Members' comments. They sometimes contain hidden threats which Conservative Members sometimes try to apply, but I try to see them in as charitable a light as I can. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for making it clear that a threat was made and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making it clear that no threats will be made here tonight, the Standing Orders of the House will be followed and the right of free speech will be upheld.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's right to scrutinise the Bill, but should such scrutiny prevent the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill from being debated, will the hon. Gentleman come to Greater Manchester to explain to the 3 million residents who desperately need that railway why he opposed the carry-over motion for that Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us stick to the Isle of Wight for the time being.
Mr. Cryer: I take your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to breach your ruling, but I could certainly put forward some good arguments, if I were allowed to do so, about the way in which the Government have overloaded the parliamentary timetable and, as a result, prejudiced some items of legislation.
Mr. Terry Davis: Would my hon. Friend remember that, if the Government are desperate for time to consider these carry-over motions, many Members with Birmingham constituencies would willingly surrender the time allocated for the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill?
Mr. Cryer: That is a pertinent comment and an example of the self-sacrifice that Birmingham Members are prepared to make to get rid of the cumbersome load known as the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill.
I shall turn to the second point that I wish to make about the amendments.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is not just that in the House of Lords the debate and the arguments hacking up the amendments are missing, but nowhere in the Lords Hansard are the amendments published. We have only this badly produced copy of amendments from the parliamentary agent, but there is nothing about the Bill on Report, when it came back from the Unopposed Bill Committee. This material is not listed in Hansard, as we would expect it to be in this House.
Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend confirming that these amendments have been produced by an outside organisation—the promoters—and that they have not been produced by the internal printing organisation within the House of Commons and the House of Lords? If so, they have not been subject to the scrutiny and checking which is normally carried out by the efficient Clerks of the House. That is another reason for deferring consideration of these amendments: we should wait until the point is clarified.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
Mr. Cryer: I shall finish this point and elaborate a little.
Verbatim records of Select Committees are taken by outside shorthand firms, but the transcripts are provided for members of the Committee so that they can be corrected and improved with the approval of the Committee. I am not sure whether these amendments have been subjected to the same sort of scrutiny——
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of not having had a chance to see the record is that we cannot tell what the Government's views of the amendments were? Usually a Committee on an unopposed Bill takes views from the relevant Government Departments—in this case, those of the Home Office, because of the civil liberties involved, and of the Department of the Environment. We do not know whether these amendments contain Government suggestions that they want incorporated in all local Bills, or whether they contain the views of the promoters. It would be helpful if a Minister could tell us whether these are the views of the Government or of the Isle of Wight county council.
Mr. Cryer: That is an important point. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.
These amendments touch on civil liberties, the province of the Home Office, which is generally against them, and on the environment—the province of the DOE, which is responsible for local authorities.
Reform of private Bill procedure is certainly long overdue; this Bill is a good example of the reasons for that. One or two Conservative Members have asked whether we do not want to reach certain Bills further down the Order Paper, which goes to show that the Government put down all these Bills for consideration expecting and hoping them to go through on the nod.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for setting down these Bills is mine, as Chairman of Ways and Means, not the Government's.
Mr. Cryer: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the number of private Bills can be swollen by the Government suggesting that certain bodies seek powers by means of the private Bill procedure. Inevitably, you have to choose what to put down. People like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put down legislation with the best will in the world and in good faith; Parliament then has to exercise its scrutiny, thereby showing up discrepancies and inadequacies in the procedure.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman implies that in some way we are being denied the chance of proper scrutiny of this measure. He is an experienced parliamentarian, but could you confirm that hon. Members could have attended the proceedings in which the measure was scrutinised, that they could have listened, taken notes and effectively taken part, and that they could have brought back to the House the information thus gathered?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order so far.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Sir. I thought that what I have been saying was unexceptionable—that debating shows up areas in which improvements can be made. I am only echoing the words of the Leader of the House who said today that private Bill procedure needs examination and improvement. If the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) wishes to challenge his right hon. and learned Friend's views, he is entitled to do so. I merely thought that, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never made an unreasonable remark before, his point should be noted.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the Procedure Committee's first recommendations was that we should not have county council Bills which affect people nationally rather than locally, but that such proposals should be implemented by Government legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that scrutiny of Government legislation is far more effective than scrutiny of private Bills such as this? All civil liberties issues could have been dealt with in Government legislation, not just for the Isle of Wight but for every county. The report recommended that there should be a miscellaneous local government Bill to deal with such matters, rather than this hole-in-the-corner private legislation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Cryer) will not be tempted to discuss that wide, general topic. We are considering Lords amendments to a particular Bill, and hon. Members should address their remarks to that subject.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will confine my remarks to the amendments.
We should not consider the amendments, because the report of the Procedure Committee has not been considered seriously enough by the Government. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is suggesting that the Committee's comments should be taken seriously. Instead
1262
of having individual local authority Bills such as this, the amendments to which we are being asked to consider, we should have general Bills for national legislation.
That is why it would not be fruitful to consider these amendments now. It would be for better to defer consideration of the Bill. The House can certainly expess an opinion to the Government. We have often heard that reforms and improvements are needed, yet they never come about. Select Committees such as the Procedure Committee make useful suggestions for improvement, but sometimes they are not even debated.
Therefore, by not dealing with the Bill, hon. Members will have an opportunity to say to the Government, "In the next Session of Parliament we will want to tackle this problem so that local authorities do not have to promote Bills, sometimes at considerable expense." We should have a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We are dealing with this Bill because the Government have crowded the legislative programme. If the Government had such a local government Bill, the Isle of Wight would not have sought to promote this Bill, and the Chairman of Ways and Means would not have had his onerous task of placing it on the agenda tonight. We could have much more measured legislation, with a far superior method of scrutiny and examination.
Mr. Barry Field: From the Vote Office, the hon. Gentleman could have obtained a copy of the House of Lords Hansard of 29 June. At column 845, he would have seen that the Isle of Wight Bill was read a Second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. He could have obtained that information for himself. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can justify his comments when the Bill is supported by the Isle of Wight Labour party, which has expressed considerable concern that the Bill might be objected to.
Mr. Cryer: Outside bodies, including the Labour party and other political parties, are quite entitled to make comments about this Bill. My guess is that the Isle of Wight Labour party would welcome legislation on a much wider basis to cover a great many local authorities. The Isle of Wight Labour party would certainly welcome the introduction and development of procedural means recommended by the Procedure Committee, which would avoid local authorities having to seek this sort of legislation in such an expensive way. If Conservative Members will support the Opposition's view that we should not deal with the amendments, and thus not deal with the Bill tonight, the Isle of Wight Labour party and other organisations would welcome that, provided that it was recognised that it is a message to the Government that a legislative programme is needed but that it should apply much more widely. That is a reasonable condition.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) stated that the Isle of Wight Labour party supports the measure. I do not know whether that is true. However, one thing is certain, and that is that, whenever we have considered a private Member's Bill in the past, Labour parties in different parts of the country have written to us. I remember, for example, the Eastbourne Harbour Bill which dealt with the marina. The Eastbourne Labour party wrote to us about the measure. I am not sure that what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said is up to date.

1263
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should not spend too much time whittling his head about that. Unless the Isle of Wight Labour party——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We should not spend our time whittling about what Labour parties outside this place think about the consideration of Lords amendments to private Bills. That is not the issue that we are considering this evening. Let us return to the Question that is before the House.
11.30 pm
Mr. Skinner: I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as Members of this place we have to scrutinise private Bills. If there is something wrong with Bills of this sort, as the Leader of the House said today, it is important that we should draw the attention of all hon. Members to the defect. If there is to be reform of private Bill procedure, that can he effected only by close scrutiny of the sort we are bringing to bear on the Isle of Wight Bill. If we engage in that scrutiny, we are likely to draw attention to the need for change much quicker.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, he is right.
Mr. Terry Davis: I do not agree with some of my hon. Friend's remarks, for reasons that I shall seek to explain later if I am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right, however, to bring to the attention of the House the fact that a record is not available to us of the arguments that were advanced in favour of the amendments. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm what I understood him to say, that there is no record of the reasons for the amendments that are sought to be made to the Bill by another place. There is television in another place; is he saying that the amendments were tabled and agreed to in camera?
Mr. Cryer: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on his neat turn of phrase. The question that he has raised illustrates the problem. The main debating Chamber of the other place has predated this Chamber by more than 12 months in having its proceedings televised, but they have antique procedures, which are not open to the public, for dealing with Unopposed Private Bill Committees. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that there was a Second Reading on 29 June, but Members of this place should not be required to go to listen to the proceedings of a Committee in another place. We have tasks to perform in this place. It should not be necessary for us to grovel to a non-elected Chamber to obtain information. That Chamber should provide information. Why not? If it provided information, we probably would not be having this debate. If the information were before us, we might be satisfied with the reasons for submitting the amendments. We could have prepared ourselves by reading that information to ascertain whether the validity of the amendments could be justified.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The case has been made for examining the private Bill procedure and making some major alterations to it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) referred to the Isle of Wight Labour party. The Opposition have never regarded the private Bill procedure as one that should include party political involvement, or one that should be usurped by it. I suspect
1264
that some of the private Bills proceeding through the House are regarded by the Government as political Bills, and have been supported on that basis.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. Those on the Government Benches have a somewhat shabby record in this instance. I recall the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and the champagne party that was laid on. I am not suggesting for a moment that that approach has been adopted to the amendments that we are being asked to consider this evening. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has referred to the comments of a political party, and there is no doubt that the passage of some private Bills has seen the Government working vigorously to promote them. They have whipped them through this place.
It is a strange irony that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight should mention the Labour party, which has been trying its best to treat private Bills in the way in which the House should deal with them instead of using them as a form of Government legislation and, therefore, promoting them. There is no allocation of responsibility to you in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You carry out your job properly and thoroughly. Inevitably, the Government have a great deal of power in this place and, to a considerable extent, they determine the amount of legislation, and they can choose to include the private Bill procedure.
Our argument is that these amendments might be better deferred so that we can study the private Bill procedure. We are near the end of this Session. According to the business statement earlier today, we finish on Thursday morning and start a new Session the following Tuesday. A new Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench, and between votes he has been practising standing at the Dispatch Box. He could make a statement accepting deferment and offering to introduce a new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the next Session. We do not ask for a guarantee, only that he agrees to consider doing that. That would be helpful to the House. As he has been here for so long, with his gleaming eye on the Dispatch Box, wanting desperately to stand there and utter a few words, it would be handy if he were given that opportunity. We want to encourage him to make a statement. He should have courage and be determined and start laying down policy early in his career. It might bring it to a tumbling end, but at least he could have a few memorable moments and a little press tomorrow.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The big advantage of the Minister introducing local government legislation to cover this matter is that we would then have it for the whole country, rather than having many local authorities wanting to promote private Bills. It would take a great deal of time in the House, but each local authority that is granted powers to regulate these events puts pressure on neighbouring local authorities that do not have those powers. That is unfair.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right, and there is great merit in what he has said. That is why I ask that we think carefully about whether we should consider the Lords amendments.
The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. Frankly, some of us think that a Committee of this House could do all the work that it does much better and more effectively, and this debate is an example in point. What revising

1265
Committee in this House would not have a record of the debates and discussions before producing amendments to a Bill? The argument has always been that the place down the Corridor is somewhere that the Government can introduce routine technical amendments to public Bills and where private Bills can be dealt with in either opposed or unopposed private Bill Committees, with minor and relatively unimportant amendments being made. Yet now, what is in effect a revising committee is not providing us—the basic, important and superior legislature—with proper and adequate information.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right to say that the textbook idea of the House of Lords is of a revising committee. I wonder where the decisions were taken. As my hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, can he say whether there is any specific rule about where such hole-in-the-corner decisions are made? Is it in the House of Lords? If not, where do the discussions take place? We should know. Something to remember on private Bills is that if we talk about the issues we might learn a little about how the process is developed. I am not sure about where the discussions took place.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. It has been suggested that those who are interested in discovering the background to the amendments should have asked the appropriate Clerk in the other place for the date on which the Committee sat and then searched out the Room.
However, the position of Members of the House of Commons attending a Committee in the other place is not clear. I can well remember attending a Joint Committee of the two Houses on defence matters at which Caspar Weinberger was present. Because I had criticised him mildly, warmonger that he was and is, their Lordships threatened to throw me out—those pinstriped hooligans in the other place. If we had gone to the other place to investigate the background which the other place will not provide——
Mr. Skinner: Bovver boys in ermine.
Mr. Cryer: That is right.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a standing convention of the House that we do not engage in criticism of the other place. It is not for the House to decide on or to discuss the procedures of their Lordships' House. They reach decisions by their own means. It is for us to bring our judgment to bear on the validity or acceptability of those decisions, and that is what we are about this evening.
Mr. Cryer: That is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are discussing the absence of any explanation from the other place. I was saying that my journey into a joint Committee in the other place finished up with quite an argument. It would be unfortunate if such a position developed while following a routine procedure to obtain information. That might inhibit hon. Members from obtaining information. The solution would be for the other place to provide their reasons for the amendments in the first place.
It is patently absurd that the Committee's proceedings were not reported verbatim. If Hansard has difficulty keeping abreast of all the legislation in the House—if Hansard is flooded with work because of the huge volume
1266
of legislation—the other place could have hired an outside body on a daily basis to provide a verbatim record. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does that. That is a joint Committee with the other place and the record is provided for both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my hon. Friend considered the amendments? There appear to be 17 amendments, but it is difficult to be sure. The previous Bill had 10 amendments and the start of each was underlined so that we could follow them. However, these amendments are not numbered or underlined——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Barnes: If we handle the amendments as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) did, we shall be in a right pickle when it comes to following what it taking place.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has anticipated my next point.
The amendments are difficult to follow. They are not couched in the way that we would put them in the House of Commons. Commons amendments are difficult enough to follow: we have to work very hard to place them in the exact context of a Bill.
Moreover, the Lords amendments give the Isle of Wight council certain powers about which I should like to know more. The proposed new subsection (1B) states:
"The Council may, in any case in which they think fit to do so, accept a notice given less than four months before the holding of the assembly as valid for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section".
I do not object to the council's being given extra powers; I am not one of those who seek to take powers from local authorities, as the Tories have. It would be interesting and useful, however, to know the reasons for such a wordy and complicated amendment.
Mr. Barnes: That illustrates the point that I was making. I find it difficult to discover in these pages the "section" just referred to. Is there any system whereby we can learn what hon. Members are talking about? Many hon. Members, after all, may wish to debate it.
11.45 pm
Mr. Cryer: I implied that in my comments: I quoted from a new subsection which it is difficult to place in the context of the Bill. But I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has an illuminating point to make.
Mr. Skinner: I have just been to see the Clerk of the House, who has been very helpful. I thought that the amendments were a jumbled-up mess, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have rightly pointed out that we cannot be too sure exactly where they begin and end. Although it is difficult to distinguish one from another, however, the Clerk has said that there are not 17 but 19. We may have to go through them stage by stage and one by one, as they are all different in character and they all confer different powers. The Clerk, however, is going to help us, and, of course, he will help Mr. Deputy Speaker as well; so I think that we shall be able to sort out the amendments as we reach them—if we reach them.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That, I think, shows the nature of the difficulty. If we had had a verbatim record, the amendments would have appeared at the end of the discussion. It would have been helpful to know whether there had been a vote on some of them, although we do not have to know; a vote would have indicated controversy. Even if there had been unanimous agreement on all of them, however, at least what had been agreed would be spelt out in the record. Instead, we have two and a half pages of what appears to be an unclassified, uncategorised and unclear jumble.
Mr. Terry Davis: Running through my hon. Friend's speech has been an undercurrent—I put it no higher than that—of criticism of the other place for its failure to provide a record of the reasons, or arguments, for the amendments. Surely, however, a greater responsibility to provide a record lies with the Bill's promoters.
Mr. Cryer: That is an important point. I think that it would probably involve a change in procedure: the promoters would have to pay for the verbatim record. That brings us to the question of objectivity, to which I alluded earlier.
Mr. Davis: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend has missed the point. I was not suggesting that the Bill's promoters should pay for a verbatim record of the arguments in the other place; I was suggesting that they might provide us with the arguments, which need not involve a verbatim record. It need only be a summary of the reasons why they consider that the amendments are justified, and would improve the Bill.
Mr. Cryer: I have not missed the point. I was about to suggest that if we rely on the promoters' explanation of such an intricate part of the legislation—as opposed to a verbatim record—the problem is that the promoters have a vested interest. They are paid to promote the Bill. If they gain a reputation for getting a Bill through exceptionally smoothly, they will gain more business. It could thus be argued that any explanation might not present an objective, impartial picture. On the contrary, it might present a highly partial and unbalanced picture, so the House would still not have an adequate explanation.
Mr. Davis: I am impressed by the speed with which my hon. Friend has advanced that argument, but there is another alternative. Perhaps we could agree on a compromise with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). If he were to give his reasons, we might be able to accept his objectivity.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. All that we have had so far from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) are a few points in which he has tried to score off me and a few other hon. Members who are exercising their perfectly proper right, under the careful scrutiny of the Chairman of Ways and Means and Mr. Deputy Speaker. He did not say, "The hon. Member has raised some points. I have a great deal of information and I wish to answer them." I very much regret that that has not happened.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my hon. Friend making the point that promoters advise and legislators decide?
Mr. Cryer: That seems to me to be an excellent aphorism, on which I cannot improve. That is something
1268
that we must bear in mind whenever we consider legislation. If legislation leaves this place with defects and faults, they stand.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend should give way to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).
Mr. Cryer: I shall certainly give way to him in a moment, because I referred to him.
One of the problems is that there is a literal interpretation of legislation. The courts are not allowed to take into account the mind of the legislator. However much we might elaborate on it in this place, it is the words on paper—in this case, the amendments—that we shall provide for the Isle of Wight, so we must be careful to ensure that those words are as tightly drafted as possible and can be amply justified in this Chamber before they receive Royal Assent.
Mr. Barry Field: I listened with particular care to what the hon. Member said about the Liberals' judgment. He may agree with me that, since we are considering a Bill that was promoted by the only county council in the country that is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, it is extraordinary that not a single member of that party is here to help the Bill on its way, despite the fact that the Bill enjoys all-party support on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. My comments about elucidating the reasons for the amendments and whether we should consider them should be heard by somebody who supports the political complexion of the council. I am shocked that no Liberal, or Social Democrat—by whatever conundrum of complexity they call themselves—is here to make what might have been a very helpful contribution.
Consideration of the amendments should be deferred. The debate has been extremely useful so far, but I shall give way now to several of my hon. Friends who want to make a contribution to the debate and develop an argument which, for the first time that I can recall under the private Bill procedure, has revealed serious defects. That is not a criticism of the House of Lords. I would shut it down tomorrow, if I could, but that is a separate issue and I do not intend to pursue it.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend cannot do that. My hon. Friend can criticise the other place but not individual members of the House of Lords.
Mr. Cryer: Exposure of those serious defects suggests that' there is a need for drastic reform to ensure that such a slipshod attitude is not revealed again. Hon. Members are elected and accountable.
Mr. Skinner: That is the difference.
Mr. Cryer: This is the senior body. They are only the revisers. They are put there by patronage and birth—the worst possible basis for selection. As of right, therefore, we are able to demand a proper approach.
Mr. Skinner: When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight got up, I took it for granted that he would explain one or two things, as he represents the area. I know that he is not a Liberal or a member of the SDP, but I think that he is in favour of the Bill. It is most unhelpful not to have an explanation. In the earlier debate on NatWest, various hon. Members spoke and the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is helping the promoters of that Bill,

1269
sat there for about one hour and then suddenly popped up and tried to explain it. We managed to glean something from what he said. It would be helpful if someone from the Isle of Wight, or the Government, would explain the Bill. We managed to get some valuable information in the earlier debate, although it came a bit too late, which is why we had to vote at the end of it.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He confirms my view. This debate has been of great use as it has brought to the attention of hon. Members the difficulties with private Bills.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had a difficult task sorting out and sifting through so many private Bills. It is regrettable that they are the result of the Government encouraging outside organisations to take this route, which was developed for the construction of railways in the 19th century. It is unsatisfactory to use the private Bill procedure for what is basically public legislation. This has been a useful debate, and we should scrutinise the Lords amendments carefully before accepting them.
Mr. Terry Davis: I disagree with the main thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although I share his concern about the lack of reasons for the Lords amendments. I do not go all the way with his criticism of private Bills, especially those produced by democratically elected county councils as a means of experimenting, or providing opportunities to experiment.
My hon. Friend is suggesting that we should have a comprehensive, compendium, miscellaneous provisions Bill for local government once a year. I do not think that that is a good idea, as I shall try to explain when we discuss the carry-over motion for the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill. I think that there is a place for initiative and municipal enterprise and for private Bills to deal with particular local problems.
I disagree most strongly with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government are in cahoots with the Isle of Wight county council and others to introduce private Bills to achieve ends which the Government do not have time to introduce public Bills to achieve. That is not the experience of Birmingham Members of Parliament.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill deals with large assemblies and how people can organise them? Does he agree that, if the rules about organising large gatherings differ in various parts of the country, it is extremely difficult for the promoters to know what hurdles they have to clear in each local authority area? Surely it is better to have the same rules throughout the country.
Mr. Davis rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Before we go any further, I should remind the House that we are discussing not the merits of the Bill, which was given an unopposed Second Reading, but whether we should consider some narrow drafting amendments made by the other place. The merits of the Bill have been decided, without opposition.
Mr. Davis: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have anticipated my second point. You allowed my hon. Friend the
1270
Member for Bradford, South to well at some length on his opposition to private Bills as a way of experimenting and dealing with local problems. I do not completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that he is against further consideration of the Bill and against the alternatives suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend is saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is not right, and he threw out the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend has a duty to explain his alternatives to the House. Even the Leader of the House has agreed that the private Bill procedure must be changed.
12 midnight
Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.Skinner)——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will resist the temptation to respond to that intervention. We are discussing not the procedure for private Bills but whether we should give further consideration to the Lords amendments.
Mr. Davis: I should dearly love to explain why I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish and for Bradford, South. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that I have a duty to explain my disagreement, but I fear that I shall have to do so not in the Chamber but in the Lobby. I should much prefer to discuss our disagreements in public, but I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It is a little unfair that he was allowed to put his point at such length, yet other Labour Members are not allowed to disagree with him.
Like the hon. member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I agree with the Bill, but that is not what we are debating. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was unfair and unreasonable in suggesting that we are discussing the principle of the Bill. That is long gone; we are discussing the detailed Lords amendments. I should like to have heard an explanation of the amendments. Some of my hon. Friends may vote against the amendments, but they will not be voting against the Bill, and that must be said very firmly.
Mr. Skinner: The Clerk told me that there are 19 Lords amendments. It is pretty clear that those amendments are substantial, and they cover almost every aspect of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was bound to talk in general terms about the amendments because they cover such wide territory—they almost rewrite the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has a duty to explain, even in general terms, why he opposes further consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that we should allow time to consider the amendments. We must consider them carefully because we

1271
have not the advantage of a record in the other place or an explanation from the promoters of the Bill or from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
Like myself, my hon. Friends will have received letters from some Labour Members who support the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and from some who oppose it. Quite properly, they have set out in letters the reasons for their opposition. When we debate that Bill next week, we shall be able to consider their arguments. I wish that we had had the advantage of a simple explanation of each of these 19 Lords amendments. I am quite happy for such an explanation to be given by the Isle of Wight county council or by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight who, as he said, is not a member of the controlling party on the Isle of Wight. It would have saved much time if we had had an explanation in writing beforehand, as I think all my hon. Friends agree.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and argue that it would be better not to consider the Lords amendments at this stage. Conservative Members may well argue why I should support the amendments. Members of the Isle of Wight Labour party wrote to me and spoke to me on the telephone, strongly putting forward their reasons why the legislation should be enacted. They were worried about the problems of controlling large assemblies in open spaces. I pointed out that we have a duty not only to consider their problems and but to safeguard the civil rights of individuals. I pointed out that many of us are concerned about the private Bill procedure, which we hope will be reformed quickly. I pointed out that, by dealing with local authorities piecemeal, the problem was simply moved from one place to another, and that if something was appropriate for the Isle of Wight, no doubt it would be appropriate for other places.
Mr. John Fraser: That is not entirely true. There are matters that are germane to London that are not germane to other parts of the country. Some local autonomy and democracy is not outrageous, especially if it is supported by the Labour party.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that there are differences between different parts of the country. However, the problem of controlling large assemblies in open spaces occurs not only on the Isle of Wight but in a substantial number of places in the south-east of England and elsewhere.
The other side of the argument is the right of individuals to assemble in large groups to demonstrate and protest. Getting the balance right is a difficult civil rights issue. On the whole, it is better to have national provision than major local variations.
Mr. Skinner: It is interesting that my hon. Friend is going down the track of saying that local authorities generally should have such powers in Bills of this kind. Only yesterday at Question Time, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would introduce legislation or assist local authorities to control these assemblies at acid house parties. If the Government dealt with that general aspect, the whole country would be covered through the work of environmental health officers.
1272
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has a point. He is a lawyer and studies these matters carefully. It looks as though the Government are going down that track.
Mr. Bennett: I understand that point. The flavour of the month is perhaps the acid house party. The legislation deals with the difficulties caused by pop festivals and similar events. I understand the difficulties faced by a person who finds that a pop festival is being organised close to his home, but we must achieve a balance between the right of the individual to take part in lawful activities and the right of people to live peacefully in their homes. it is difficult to achieve that balance.
I should like to consider our difficulties during the Bill's passage. It is impossible to make sense of the Bill without reading the earlier legislation. When it was to be considered by the other place, the sponsors helpfully included the schedule which referred to section 5 of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971, as amended by the Bill. Page 3 of the Bill said what the legislation was doing, which I am sure was very helpful. Unfortunately, the 19 amendments, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, virtually change the original legislation. The problem now is that when we read the schedule, it is extremely difficult to work out whether it is the chief constable or other people who have to give the authority. It would have been reasonable for the promoters to ensure that, when the amendments came to this House, section 5 of the original legislation as amended by this Bill was reprinted in the schedule so that we could now read the balance of the legislation.
In addition, either the promoters should have given us a statement, or the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who I presume is sponsoring the Bill, should have explained to us that the original Bill did not cover various points, so the changes were required to improve the balance. However, our difficulty is that we cannot read about the proceedings in the House of Lords, so we do not know what arguments were advanced there, and so far, no hon. Member has told us what the advantages of the changes are.
Mr. Skinner: I want to help my hon. Friend. I have been sitting on the Bench where the party that dare not speak its name usually sits. That party controls the Isle of Wight, so I should have thought that one of its representatives would have been able to explain the amendments.
What my hon. Friend has said is alarming. I told my hon. Friend earlier that the 19 amendments, which cover several pages, might rewrite the Bill. My hon. Friend, who has scrutinised the Bill carefully—as he does all such Bills, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is saying exactly that. As the Liberals, who have some control of the Isle of Wight, are not explaining the amendments, the Government are not helping and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is not doing anything, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to explain fully why he opposes further consideration of the amendments, which seem to rewrite the Bill. No one else will explain the Bill; I believe that my hon. Friend could.
Mr. Bennett: I was hoping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you might advise me not to go down that path——
Mr. Skinner: It is germane.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend tempts me a great deal, but I must make it clear that I am not a lawyer, so I find it extremely difficult to put the amendments into the existing schedule to find out precisely what is being suggested. However, I had the impression that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He could carry out that task for us and I should listen to his explanation with great interest.
I am concerned about this matter. I know that you have already said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not want us to go into the whole question of the way in which private Bills proceed. However, if we are looking to the reform of the private Bill procedure, I hope that it will be suggested to promoters, first, that it would be better if the Bill were in the right form when it began its progress through the House, and secondly, that, if charges were to be made as a result of advice from the Home Office and the Government, they were made in Committee in the House of Commons, and not at a late stage in the House of Lords and then slipped back here without clear guidance about their intention.
Mr. Barry Field: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because I have sat here for almost five hours listening to the arguments on the International Westminster Bank Bill and this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has come close to making two points with which I agree. The first is that the private Bill procedure of this House is clearly in considerable need of overhaul and modernisation: I align myself with his comments. The second is that he informed the House that he had received a letter from the Isle of Wight Labour party. I am obliged to him for that remark, because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rather gave the impression that, when I make a statement in the House, its veracity might be called into question.
As the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, no member of the Liberal party is present tonight, despite the fact that the Isle of Wight is the only county council that the Liberal party controls. It is remarkable that the Liberals are not here tonight to lend their weight and support to what is essentially a county council Bill.
The House passed the original Isle of Wight County Council Act in 1971. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the original Act is intended to control open-air events such as pop festivals. It could be said that the Isle of Wight had one of the first acid house parties in the early 1960s. We have sought our own private Act because of our difficulties in controlling such large-scale open-air events. We wanted to ensure that those events were properly regulated, with proper hygiene arrangements on site and proper controls. As a result of an amendment to the Act, a prosecution was brought last year, but it was found in the magistrates to be defective.
The Lords amendments to this Bill are entirely drafting amendments. They were intended to bring the Bill into line and hopefully ensure that, when it is enacted, it will be possible to prosecute those who do not comply with the Act's requirements.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
12.15 am
Mr. Field: I will give way when I have finished my point.
Since I was elected, I have witnessed many bizarre occasions. However, if someone had told me that I would stand here tonight and witness the Labour party supporting the actions of the National Front, I would have been staggered. The failed prosecution to which I have referred, came about as a result of events at the last scooter rally held by the National Front on the Isle of Wight. It is remarkable that the Labour party should support the National Front tonight.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem with defending civil liberties is that sometimes we have to defend them for people whom we find totally objectionable? It is very difficult to confer civil rights on people we detest. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the 1971 Act got into a mess in the first place? The original Act passed through the private Bill procedure, but because that scrutiny was unsatisfactory, the prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman referred collapsed in the magistrates court. Would it not be better to have Government legislation on the issue, as that would be much more likely to stand up in a magistrates court?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question before us is that the Lords amendments be now considered. We are discussing drafting amendments to a Bill that was given an unopposed Second Reading. It is not appropriate this evening to discuss the merits of the Bill. They have already been decided.
Mr. Field: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your very helpful comments.
We are discussing the Lords amendments, which are intended to guard the civil liberties of the people of the Isle of Wight against the actions of the National Front. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should be seeking to support the National Front tonight.
Mr. Martin Redmond: I have sat here for several hours. I also listened to the proceedings on the Isle of Wight Bill in Committee Upstairs. We listened to the arguments, and at no time did anyone mention that the Bill was intended to stop National Front gatherings on the Isle of Wight. If the Bill is intended to specifically stop the National Front, the Bill should say so. It does not. Tonight is the first time that I have heard it said that National Front members are the only people who organise large-scale gatherings on the Isle of Wight.
It is true that the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. Tonight, however, I had expected the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to tell us why we should consider the amendments. There is no doubt that the amendments leave a lot to be desired.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to inhibit the hon. Gentleman from discussing the amendments, but I wonder whether this is the appropriate time to do so. We are discussing whether the Lords amendments should be considered. When we have resolved that matter, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and other hon. Members can discuss the substance or the merit of the amendments.
Mr. Redmond: I accept your guidance at all times in such matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then."] I

1275
certainly shall not sit down, until I have made the points I want to make. Perhaps you should inform one or two hon. Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if they are unwell, they should go home.
In Committee, one listens to the barristers and to the petitioners as they make their points about the Bill. One also has the opportunity to ask questions, but, unfortunately, once one has spoken, one is not allowed a second chance to do so. Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the questions I wanted answered because the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not get off his backside to tell us why the amendments had been made. As soon as he had spoken, however, someone moved the closure. If we are to consider amendments properly, they should be referred back to the Committee that originally considered them.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give exactly the same attention to all the Lords amendments to the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill when we come to discuss it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: One Bill at a time. We can worry about that Bill when we come to it.
Mr. Redmond: I will not respond to threats. I consider that I am well paid to spend my time here, but many hon. Members might sooner be home in bed—I do not know whose.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) claimed that it was strange that we were opposing the Bill, given that it had the support of the Isle of Wight Labour party and the political connotations attached to it. No Opposition Member has spoken against the Bill. We are discussing whether the amendments should be considered and procedural matters. We are also discussing whether it is right to go ahead with the Bill in its present form without being given an explanation for its present state.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes that point admirably.
I went along to the Vote Office to collect the private Bill and the amendments to it. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain them, and you will recollect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I raised a point of order about Lords amendments being unavailable. I went back to the Vote Office and managed to obtain a copy of the amendments that someone had managed to find somewhere. Originally, I asked to be given all the Lords amendments, so that I could consider them properly to ensure that they were technical, substantive and worthy of discussion. Fifteen minutes ago, we went back and managed to get hold of the Lords amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has little alternative but to look at the 19 different amendments and go through them. We can try to help one another by starting at the beginning and seeing which ones are important, which are less important and which should be opposed. Perhaps they should all he opposed—who knows? In the absence of any, or very little, consideration being given to the matter by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the fact that the Liberals who control the council are not here to provide us with information, there is only one alternative left. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davies) touched on it: we must go through the amendments.
1276
We do not have a verbatim report from the House of Lords so we shall have to start the process. There are about three pages, and we should quietly go through the amendments——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rule of the House in these matters is that Members speak only once unless they have the unanimous consent of the House. Repeated interventions that are of the duration of speeches transgress that rule. The other convention of the House is that interventions should be brief.
Mr. Redmond: It is quite obvious that we cannot possibly give the amendments due consideration unless we have time to do so. It may be that they are all acceptable, but they may not be. Unless one is a lawyer—I am not, thank God—one needs more time to consider exactly what a particular amendment means. The Bill may have been there an hour or so later, but it certainly was not there this morning when I went to pick up all the Bills. Therefore, I could not spend a day or so giving due consideration to what, if anything, I should say.
It appears that Conservative Members are not interested in passing good legislation. I do not know what would happen if a bad private Bill left this House. Who would rectify it if it proved to be a bad piece of legislation? Would the Secretary of State for the Environment go charging into the courts to secure an amendment? I am not quite sure. Therefore, it is important to give due consideration to the Lords amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill to see whether we should debate them.
When we give them due consideration, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) might say what the amendments would do.
Mr. Cryer rose——
Mr. Redmond: Let me make this point. It would certainly be helpful to me to be able to say that an amendment was correct.
It is untrue to say, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight did, that I support the National Front. Perhaps some Conservative Members have closer links with the National Front than I do, because I do not support it.
Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if we analyse the arguments of him and his hon. Friends this evening about the Isle of Wight Bill, the availability of the Lords' debates material, the unsatisfactory nature of those debates, the failure of schedules of details on the amendments, the fact that we should debate this in the context of a miscellaneous provisions Bill, they can be seen to be equally valid for every other Bill on the Order Paper? Those Bills include one in which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has an interest: the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? What he is arguing could equally be said of a Bill that he supports.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us stick to whether we should or should not consider the Lords amendments.
12.30 am
Mr. Redmond: I accept your guidance, Sir. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to these Lords amendments, and not hint at what might happen to future private Bills on the agenda.

1277
I agree that we need a different system, but we need one that is accountable. Many Bills going through the House should be considered by local councillors. In this case, the Lords have submitted amendments, and we cannot challenge the reasons for them. We cannot ask the Clerks to explain what the promoters or the parliamentary agents may or may not want. Parliamentary agents may have ulterior reasons for their suggestions. If we had been able to discuss them in a proper Committee, we might not have had to spend the night deciding whether to consider the Lords amendments. I will not allow the matter to pass without comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said that he was suspicious by nature. I am not—I like to trust people—but over the past two years my trust has been misplaced and taken advantage of. I come from Yorkshire, and I am a little naive about how the City sharks operate——
Mr. Barry Field rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 21.

Division No. 400]

[12.32 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Gale, Roger

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Amess, David

Gill, Christopher

Amos, Alan

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Arbuthnot, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Baldry, Tony

Gregory, Conal

Bendall, Vivian

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Benyon, W.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Ground, Patrick

Boswell, Tim

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bottomley, Peter

Hague, William

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hanley, Jeremy

Bowis, John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Harris, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hayward, Robert

Brazier, Julian

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bright, Graham

Hind, Kenneth

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Holt, Richard

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Buck, Sir Antony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Burns, Simon

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Burt, Alistair

Irvine, Michael

Butterfill, John

Jack, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jackson, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Janman, Tim

Chapman, Sydney

Kilfedder, James

Chope, Christopher

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Knapman, Roger

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lawrence, Ivan

Couchman, James

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Devlin, Tim

Lightbown, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lilley, Peter

Durant, Tony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Eggar, Tim

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Emery, Sir Peter

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fallon, Michael

Maclean, David

Favell, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mans, Keith

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mellor, David

Freeman, Roger

Miller, Sir Hal

French, Douglas

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

1278

Mitchell, Sir David

Stern, Michael

Moate, Roger

Stevens, Lewis

Moss, Malcolm

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Neubert, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sumberg, David

Paice, James

Summerson, Hugo

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thorne, Neil

Portillo, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Redwood, John

Wallace, James

Renton, Tim

Wheeler, John

Rowe, Andrew

Widdecombe, Ann

Ryder, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Sackville, Hon Tom

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sims, Roger

Mr. Michael Colvin and

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mr, Jacques Arnold.

Stanbrook, Ivor

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Meale, Alan

Barron, Kevin

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Nellist, Dave

Boyes, Roland

Prescott, John

Cryer, Bob

Redmond, Martin

Cummings, John

Ruddock, Joan

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

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Foster, Derek

Haynes, Frank

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Michael Welsh and

McFall, John

Mr. Harry Barnes.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put, accordingly, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—
The House proceeded to a Division;
12.45am
Mr. Barry Field(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the disparity of previous votes, would you allow us to rise in our places to take the vote?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): No.
The House having divided: Ayes 122, Noes 15.

Division No. 401]

[12.44 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Amess, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amos, Alan

Couchman, James

Arbuthnot, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Devlin, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Dorrell, Stephen

Bevan, David Gilroy

Durant, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fallon, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Favell, Tony

Bowis, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fishburn, John Dudley

Brazier, Julian

Freeman, Roger

Bright, Graham

French, Douglas

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gale, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gill, Christopher

Buck, Sir Antony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Burns, Simon

Goodlad, Alastair

Butterfill, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carrington, Matthew

Gregory, Conal

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

1279

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mitchell, Sir David

Ground, Patrick

Moate, Roger

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moss, Malcolm

Hague, William

Neubert, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Paice, James

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Patnick, Irvine

Harris David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hayward, Robert

Porter, David (Waveney)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Portillo, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Redwood, John

Holt, Richard

Renton, Tim

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

Rowe, Andrew

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Ryder, Richard

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)

Irvine, Michael

Sims, Roger

Jack, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Jackson, Robert

Stanbrook, Ivor

Janman, Tim

Stern, Michael

Kilfedder, James

Stevens, Lewis

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Knapman, Roger

Sumberg, David

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Summerson, Hugo

Lawrence, Ivan

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Thorne, Neil

Lightbown, David

Viggers, Peter

Lilley, Peter

Wallace, James

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wheeler, John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Wolfson, Mark

Maclean, David

Wood, Timothy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mans, Keith

Tellers for the Ayes:

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Mr. Michael Colvin and

Miller, Sir Hal

Mr. Jacques Arnold.

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Nellist, Dave

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

Prescott, John

Boyes, Roland

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Cryer, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Welsh Michael (Doncaster N)

Haynes, Frank

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Noes:

McFall, John

Mr. Martin Redmond and

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. John Cummings.

Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell us how you intend to deal with this? Is there to be a debate on the first amendment, followed by our proceeding to a vote if we wish; or do you intend us to debate several amendments together, followed by votes on each?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It would be more convenient for the House and in accordance with our normal custom if we had a general debate on all the Lords amendments. We could consider later how to reach a decision on the amendments.
Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I look at the amendments I have difficulty understanding whether all the amendments hang together and deal with one issue or whether they cover a wide range of issues. Can you give guidance on whether they all hang together? Unfortunately, I could not find a selection list in the Noes Lobby.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we proceeded in the way that I have suggested rather than tried to split them up artificially.
1 am
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the list of 19 amendments and it is more than a little difficult to find out where one ends and the other begins. I discussed the matter with the Clerk who was in the Chamber earlier. He had a list, and I suppose that he left it for the next Clerk. He marked the precise amendments. The amendments are different in terms of the part of the Bill to which they relate, so we should discuss them separately. The first amendment reads:
"In the Preamble, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
" (2) By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972:"
The other amendments are completely different.
We managed to deal with two or three amendments at the same time when we considered the International Westminster Bank Bill. That was a comparatively minor Bill compared with this one, which covers a whole range of powers for the local authority. For the life of me, I do not see how we can have a general debate on the granting of powers relating to acid house parties, rallies and so on without hearing from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. It is like considering together 15 schedules to a Government Bill. Each amendment should be considered separately.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary to debate the amendments together, and a number of them hang together. I am sure that with its usual ingenuity, the House will find no difficulty covering all the points that need to be covered. It would be better to debate the amendments that are now before us.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is difficult to decipher all these pages of amendments. My point of order is very practical. You will note that the first amendment says:
"In the preamble, page 1, line 4, at end insert—"
and then it says:
"Section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972:"
I know that this is not a Committee stage, but were it the Committee stage of a normal Bill, it would be incumbent on the responsible Department to provide for hon. Members who intended to take part in the debate an explanatory memorandum so that we could understand what other legislation is being referred to.
Can you explain to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose responsibility it is to provide us with sufficient copies—for the 150 or so hon. Members who obviously want to take part in the debate, or they would not be listening to me so patiently—of extracts from legislation such as section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 as would enable us to see precisely how the Lords amendments affect existing legislation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is quite clear that it is not for the Chair to explain what the hon. Gentleman

1281
asks, but, if we get on with the debate, he might get answers to the questions that he is asking. We shall now continue with the debate on the Lords amendments.
Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to be difficult. There are about 100 hon. Members in the Chamber, and I do not think that one has a copy of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. Those of us who want to take part in the debate want to know whose responsibility it is to supply copies of it. None is available in the Vote Office. I have been there, and the only thing I can get hold of is a copy of the Lords amendments. Whose responsibility is it to provide other bits of information so that we can get on with the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for hon. Members. If we get on with the debate, we may get answers to such questions.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) would have got up and explained the Lords amendments and how they affect the Bill that was discussed in Committee.
It emerged in Committee that the desire to control crowds and facilities for them was the main reason for the Bill. Since then, Conservative Members have said that that was not said. The Vote Office was unable to give me a copy of the Lords amendments until quite recently. If we had had copies this morning, when we asked for them, we could have examined the amendments and decided whether to support them. We have not had much time to consider the amendments, so I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, once again, to give us the benefit of the knowledge that he should have gained as the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight.
The House should not pass any measure that would be detrimental to the people of the Isle of Wight. Hon. Members should consider the amendments more carefully.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) should explain the amendments. Some of the amendments appear to be technical and only alter words here and there. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should take us through—I have had to number he amendments myself—amendments Nos. 10, 5 and 12, which make major changes.
Mr. Redmond: I accept what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight had an opportunity briefly to explain the Bill on Second Reading. He failed to do so; it was moved formally and accepted. We cannot allow things to continue in that way.
I remember that the Local Government Act 1972 was huge. One needs it to hand to understand the implications of the first amendment. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that I should have checked it in the Library, but to have done so I would have needed the Lords amendments in my hand this morning. I have grave reservations about whether the amendments should be made because I am not sure of their implications. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should explain the implication of the amendments.
Mr. Barnes: Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 is several pages long. The Bill amends provisions of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971. The Isle of
1282
Wight Act 1980 waived the provisions in section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is beyond me to understand which part of those Acts is changed by the amendment. I believe that it is beyond hon. Members, because no one has sorted it out.
Mr. Redmond: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining that.
Everything is as clear as mud, and fully to understand the Bill one should have the relevant documents. Given the substantial changes that the amendments would make, the Bill should return to Committee.
Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to continue speaking after he has clearly fallen asleep?
Mr. Redmond: I am sure that, just before I fall asleep, hon. Members will hear me cough. When they hear that, they will think, "He is heading for noddy land." Interruptions tend to disrupt the flow of one's speech.
Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intend to explain? If he will do his job efficiently and thoroughly, I am willing to sit down to let him explain. However, I am convinced that there will be silence from him.
1.15 am
Mr. Michael Welsh: The first Lords amendment deals with a point only four lines into the Bill, which is nearly unbelievable. I cannot get to the bottom of the matter. The local authorities want the power to control large overnight assemblies in the open. Does that mean that if there is a boy scouts' jamboree, they can control it, but if there is an acid house party, they may have no desire to control it? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain the meaning of the first Lords amendment, which applies so early in the Bill.
Mr. Redmond: In the debate on the International Westminster Bank Bill, my hon. Friend questioned the judgment of the people who had produced the legislation. I should love to be able to say that everything is crystal clear so that the House can make a decision. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I was not with their Lordships when they produced these amendments. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should intervene to allay our fears. In wanting to control large assemblies, do the local authorities want to control acid house parties, Nazi or National Front gatherings—to which reference was made earlier—or boy scouts' jamborees? The latter are also large organised gatherings, and many lads and girl guides enjoy them.
I am not a suspicious man, but what has transpired over the past few months has turned my trusting nature into one of suspicion. I now question everything. People can put over things quite nicely. We know that everyone wants to say, "We had a good day," and go home to bed and have a good night's kip.
Mr. Nellist rose——
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to "Erskine May", which states:
"The Speaker has also stated that it is the custom for Members to wear jackets and ties."

1283
I have raised this matter several times with Mr. Speaker. He has ruled that he will not call Members who are not properly attired for the Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is wearing a jacket and tie. Mr. Redmond.
Mr. Nellist: Can my hon. Friend assist ——
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly heard you call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is the third time in the past half hour that you have called him. We are in danger of a precedent being set as not only is he not wearing a jacket when you have called him, but he has his shirt sleeves rolled up. Will you please ask him to withdraw from the Chamber until he is properly dressed, or not call him again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that Mr. Speaker has dealt with this matter on a number of occasions. He has requested normal dress in the Chamber, but he has never said that it is an absolute condition for an hon. Member being called. He has merely deprecated abnormal dress. I call Mr. Nellist.
Mr. Nellist: Can my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) assist me? I am having difficulty with the first amendment. My hon. Friend will see that on his Amendment Paper it says that the amendment seeks to insert at the end of line 4 on page 1:
"By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972."
The Bill says:
"By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972."
I have read those words four times in the past two minutes and, to me, they are indentical. I cannot understand why we are being asked to discuss an amendment that is worded exactly the same as a provision of the Bill when it emerged from Committee. Can my hon. Friend explain that, or will he ask other hon. Members to explain it? If not, it is a waste of time.
Mr. Redmond: I shall do my best, but I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight if he wants to explain what the Isle of Wight Act 1980 says. A lawyer would understand. Like most legal documents, one would need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the amendments. Many Members are in the legal profession and will no doubt jump up to clarify the position.
As I understand it, when a Bill is presented to the Clerks' Office, they have a natter and a discussion. If everything is in order, the Bill is clarified, the proper procedures and notifications take place and the Bill then goes into Committee where those who support or oppose it can discuss it. They can listen to a barrister or a Queen's counsel—I am not sure which but, by God, they can talk. The Bill is then presented. After that, the Bill comes to this House and, if it is not amended, it goes to the other place. It then arrives back here duly amended.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that I may have misled the House earlier when I complained that the Bill that we received from the Vote Office needed to have these amendments incorporated?
1284
The Bill should come from the Vote Office as it came out of Committee. Our problem is that we do not have the original Bill as it went into Committee. For my lion. Friend to see what has happened, we have to read the schedule, which sets out the provisions as amended. The difficulty is that we do not have before us the Bill in the form in which it went into Committee, which would have been helpful. However, it is not available at the Vote Office.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In all seriousness, will you consider having the Bill withdrawn from debate, by whatever technical means may be necessary? If the Vote Office cannot supply us with the necessary paper work for us to consider the Bill properly, it is an injustice to all concerned with the Bill for the debate to continue. Will you consider having the Bill withdrawn from debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to do that. If we get on with the debate, we may get the answers.
Mr Redmond: I am sure that the answers will not be forthcoming from the people who should give them. I am sorry, but——
Mr. Hind: The South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill is not looking very good now.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had threats from Conservative Members. They are saying that if they do not make progress on this Bill, they will take it out on another Bill. That is not the way for the House to proceed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Matters are complicated enough. Let us deal with one Bill at a time.
Mr. Redmond: The more threats that are made. the more stubborn I become—sticks and stones.
I was elected to this place to try to do the best for the people of Don Valley. Rightly or wrongly, I will try to do that. It may displease Conservative Members if I want to represent my constituents: that may be a little foreign to their natures. However, I will represent them to the best of my ability, whether or not that pleases Tory Members.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although he and I are here to represent our constituencies, we are not here to scupper whatever they want to do in the Isle of Wight? Can we not get on with the Isle of Wight business?
Mr. Redmond: I hope that we are not scuppering the Isle of Wight Bill. I hope that the residents of the Isle of Wight get their Bill. However, we hope that that Bill will be good and will be beneficial to the Isle of Wight arid to the people who live there so that they can enjoy the benefits of the Bill for centuries—unless another private Bill is introduced. I am not against the Bill. I just want to ensure that the people of the Isle of Wight, their children and their children's children can enjoy the benefits of a good Bill.
I am not sure whether the Lords amendments will meet that end. That is why I want clarification from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. However, it appears that he is more in the dark than I am.
Mr. Michael Welsh: I thought that we were discussing amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill. That is quite simple. However, we are not. We are discussing a Bill that, has

1285
been amended in Committee. We are not discussing Lords amendments to the Bill because no one has a copy of the Bill. We have only the amended version. The Bill is another piece of paper. Is this the procedure that we should follow? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is more knowledgeable than I on these issues and I hope that he can answer my points.
Mr. Redmond: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North should sit in on these Committees and he would be able to say whether we should be discussing Lords amendments now. After the Bill has passed from the Private Bill Office and has been explained and discussed, my hon. Friend may understand what is happening. Unlike my hon. Friend, who is suspicious, I am trusting. Unfortunately, that trust has turned sour.
Whether hon. Members like it or not, I want to search for the information so that I can say whether an amendment is okay. It is different to reach such a decision because of the lack of information. Lawyers, and there are plenty of them in here, have stacks of books containing case history after case history to help them make decisions. If a private Bill is bad and we decide to kick it out, who rectifies that mistake? Is it left to the judicial procedure or is the approval of the House required to make the necessary amendments? The Bill and the Local Government Act 1972 are no mean documents, but reference is also made to other documents, and so it goes on.
1.30 am
If hon. Members want to intervene or make sedentary interventions I shall gladly give way, as I did a moment ago. I should be happy if they clarified the position about the amendments.
The amendment on page 2, line 6 talks about four months. I should have thought that it would have been in the interests of the Isle of Wight authorities to be flexible about the time scale. To organise an event properly may take two years, two months, two days, 24 hours or even an hour. The Government usually work to the shortest possible time scale when considering private Bills.
It is important that consideration is given to the Lords amendments. I will sit down happily if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight explains the amendments. I am not sure that he will do so. By my probing I hope to provoke some comment which will enlighten our proceedings. I shall not vote against the amendments if it is proved that they are good for the people of the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has said that they are beneficial to those people, but he should get up and prove that. I will happily accept the Bill if people tell me what certain things mean, why it must be altered and why there is such a rush to get it through on the nod. I do not like to be criticised for trying to find out those answers.
I am opposed to acid house parties. That youngsters want to attend such parties is a terrible indictment of our nation. We should provide better means to keep those youngsters away from such parties. We are concerned, however, to ensure that we do not take steps to stop all large gatherings as that would would be an infringement of civil liberties.
1286
We must consider the amendments carefully and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will get up to explain them.
Mr. Barry Field indicated assent.
Mr. Redmond: I shall sit down in good faith and in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain away my fears.
Mr. Field: The original Bill was passed by the House in 1971 as a result of between 80,000 and 100,000 young people attending a pop festival on the Isle of Wight. My predecessor Mark Woodnutt sought the support of the House in endeavouring to obtain legislation to regulate and control such a large gathering on the island. That was partially effective, and the pop festivals have subsequently been replaced by scooter rallies in which 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 individuals arrive on the island for a bank holiday weekend. They congregate on one particular site—usually a rented field.
As I have already said, the Bill's purpose is to ensure that proper notice is given by the organisers of such an event, to ensure that sanitation, fire engines, police and St. John Ambulance are present to ensure that the young people enjoy themselves in an orderly and safe way. After amendments had been passed in the House, an event took place which 6,500 young people attended on their scooters. There is some evidence to lead us to believe that the organiser pocketed a considerable amount of money. The beer tent charged a high price for a can of lager. Various elements on the site—which the local police have said were definitely National Front supporters—stoned the fire engines, burned down the beer tent and generally ran riot.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will know that the Isle of Wight has the highest percentage of any county council in the country of over 75-year-olds who live independently in their homes. They were clearly terrified. The behaviour of the individuals was appalling. A small caucus of the youngsters, not the majority, came from the National Front to disrupt what would otherwise have been a perfectly reasonable weekend for the other young people.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
Mr. Field: No, I shall not give way.
Unfortunately, when charges were brought against the organisers in the local magistrates courts, the magistrates had to conclude that they could not proceed with the charges because the original Act was defective. I hope that, tonight, the amendments will win the support of all hon. Members.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has already mentioned, the local Labour party on the Isle of Wight supports the Bill, as does the Social and Liberal Democrat party despite the fact that its members are absent tonight. That is an appalling indictment of the party when we consider that that is the only county council in the country which it controls.
I hope that we may yet obtain the support of Opposition Members for these reasonable amendments, so that next time a charlatan organises an event on the Isle of Wight, overcharges young people and does not abide by the proper regulations which ensure that such events are reasonably organised so that young people can enjoy themselves in a proper way and undesirables are kept out, we shall be able to bring a prosecution. The fines would be quite substantial.

1287
'HMSOSTANDARDNobody would say that this is an unreasonable piece of legislation. I am sad that Opposition Members, whom I have got to know quite well, seek to hold up this perfectly reasonable legislation. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion at the moment.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: For a long time, I have contended in the House that private legislation is not appropriate to deal with matters such as this. The point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) well illustrates that. The private Act was put on the statute book with every good intention of dealing with a problem that had arisen on the island, but its drafting turned out to be defective. It is clearly the responsibility of the House to ensure that we do not produce an Act this time which is equally defective. We do not want an organiser of one of these events to be able to drive a coach and horses through the measure.
It would be much more appropriate to bring forward a Government Bill which could be carefully scrutiinised and amended. That would result in a better chance—although not a certainty—that the legislation could deal with the problem
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would take us through some of the problems with these amendments. First, this Bill will apply only if the organiser believes that more than 5,000 people will turn up at an event. What would happen if two people organised two separate events in two separate fields in fairly close proximity? If 3,000 people turned up at each event——
Mr. Barry Field: That is exactly what happened when the Hell's Angels arrived on one site and the scooterists on another. The situation was fraught with danger, and we wanted to keep the two groups, apart for obvious reasons.
Mr. Bennett: How would this Bill keep them apart? Perhaps I have misread the Bill, but as long as each group can reasonably assume that not more than 5,000 people will show up, the Bill will not deal with the problem. I do not see how it will be possible to adjudicate——
Mr. Field: If the hon. Gentleman comes to the Isle of Wight, I shall he happy to show him how.
Mr. Bennett: The point of scrutinising the legislation in this House is to make sure that it will work. I would be happy to go to the Isle of Wight, but we must ensure that the problem does not arise again.
Back in 1971, a problem arose in the island, and all this time later it appears that the legislation of the time did not solve——
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The original legislation helped with solving the problem, but subsequent amendments have since been shown to be defective when it came to prosecuting the organisers.
Mr. Bennett: That is the point. We need to be certain that we have got it right this time, so that the legislation catches someone who tries to get around the law next time ——
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is a perceptive Member and aware that trends in society change. We cannot freeze
1288
human nature or activities, so the Isle of Wight might have to come back for more legislation in future if confronted by acid house parties, for instance.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that, but we must be careful to make the legislation as nearly correct as possible——
Mr. Skinner: Page 5 of the Bill states:
"An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are more than 5,000 people present at any time not being an assembly held—".
It is an offence if the defence cannot show that the organisers have
"reasonable grounds for believing that there would be more than 5,000 people present".
Who is to decide? Someone may say, "I am sorry, judge, but I thought only about 4,000 people were going to turn up. I am sorry that there were 6,000 or 20,000." That is the effect of the Bill. I am certain that the Bill would need to come back to the House.
1.45 am
Mr. Bennett: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he has also gone to meetings, hoping that a certain number of people will turn up. One is often a Little disappointed. On other occasions, a much larger number of people turn up. That is one of the problems with this legislation. The figure of 5,000 obviously denotes a big event, but it creates some difficulties.
Mr. Michael Welsh: We sympathise with the Isle of Wight and the trouble it has had with big parties. However, no city or town should suffer such trouble. If trouble is stopped in only one area, it will be exported somewhere else unless we have a Bill which applies to the whole United Kingdom. Such a Bill would be debated fully and would put an end to all trouble throughout the United Kingdom. Is that not what we wish?
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a point which I have made on several occasions. These issues should be covered by Government legislation. The sooner we get private business sorted out, the sooner we can avoid proceedings such as these.
Debate adjourned.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Debate to be resumed on Monday 13 November.

Isle of Wight Bill

  ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

  HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

  NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

  UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

Orders of the Day

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fallon].
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fallon.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  OPTICIANS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fallon.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
    That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Seventh General Increase) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    ANIMAL WELFARE
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7648/89 and 7654/89 relating to the protection of calves and pigs kept in intensive farming systems; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory welfare safeguards which take account of the views of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 5) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1610), dated 1st September 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th September, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]
    Question agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Dr. John Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House and Dr. John Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  1.55 am
  Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have proposed the Question. If the hon. Gentleman speaks he will take time out of the debate. Does he still want to raise a point or order?
  Mr. Harris: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you inform the House of the position on the carry-over motions for various Bills? I have a constituency interest in the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill. To my knowledge, no reference was made to those Bills during the time for private business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means will put them down again tomorrow.
  1.56 am
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: At this late hour it would not be wholly accurate to say that I am delighted to be bringing before the House the important subject of the multi-fibre arrangement. It is important for the 480,000 people who are employed in the textiles and clothing industry in this country—it is the fifth largest industrial sector. It is important for consumers—every man, woman and child has textile products. It is crucial for the textile industry worldwide, which is worth about $160 billion, and it provides opportunities for development in the poorer countries. Most of all, it provides the opportunity to explore the relationship between the interests of consumers and the maximising of economic growth worldwide and the desire for stability and the steady restructuring of industries in the developed world which are involved in the textile industry but which have a natural cost disadvantage compared with developing countries.
  It is apposite that we are considering this matter now as the Uruguay round of GATT expires in 1990 within which discusions on the multi-fibre arrangement, through the EEC, will begin in July 1990 and, we hope, be concluded in July 1991. These are not easy questions and there are no simple answers on whether the MFA should be abolished and, if so, when. Perhaps we should begin with the basic premise of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is that multilateral trade should be as free as possible and should be impeded only by tariff barriers, and that even those should be brought down gradually. Through that and through the process of comparative advantage, wealth will be maximised because countries with particular advantages, either on a labour or a technological basis, will be concentrating production on those areas where they have the greatest expertise. As a result, wealth throughout the world will be maximised because countries will be producing the products that are most appropriate for them.
  From the outset, GATT was weighted in favour of the developing countries. It allowed them tariff-free access to the developed world and it laid down that the developed world should not raise non-tariff barriers. The MFA is specifically a derogation from GATT and from its liberal,

  1293
  free trade principles. To that extent, it is an anomaly to allow the developed world, in particular the textile producers, to restructure against the threat of low-cost imports from the developing world.
  When the system was first introduced in 1974 it was regarded as being temporary, yet 15 years on it has been renewed three times and now covers 45 countries with 26 bilateral agreements under MFA4.
  I should emphasise that the MFA is a protectionist measure that discriminates against low-cost producers in the developing world and imposes costs upon consumers throughout the world. It is the most protectionist measure in any manufacturing sector in the world, and only this October it was called by Barber Conable, the president of the World bank,
  "one of the most particular protectionist measures called for by the industrialised West."
  In the Uruguay round, the EC and the British Government, who are signatories to GATT, have called for the phasing out of restrictions under the MFA and other restrictions on textiles and clothing not consistent with GATT rules and disciplines on a progressive basis and subject to restrictions. Even the apparel, knitting and textiles alliance agrees with the principle of ending the M FA.
  Nevertheless, the abolition of the MFA is politically sensitive, as we saw on 9 December 1988 when every speaker, bar one, in a debate in the House spoke for the producers who would be affected by it. They argued that it provided relative stability in the United Kingdom's textile industry, despite the fact that employment in the industry has dropped from 700,000 to 480,000 in 20 years; it averted trade conflicts of the kind into which the United States has been tempted recently, and to a certain extent it allowed for a gradual restructuring and concentration of the industry which has invested £2 billion in the past five years, although the number of establishments in it has dropped during that period.
  The arguments that hon. Members put forward in December last year were that the British textile industry needed protection from high interest rates, although they have been a relatively recent phenomenon; from high exchange rates, although between 1980 and 1987 the effective exchange rates for British textiles fell; and particularly because of unfair trade practices. For instance, there was a total ban on imports of textiles by Pakistan, high tariffs on textiles by Turkey, adding up overall to about 199 per cent. of basic value, and South Korea erected non-tariff barriers on the basis that its balance of payments was heavily in deficit. That is one of the things that can be done under the MFA, yet it had a trade surplus of $4·2 billion in 1986 and $11·4 billion in 1988.
  It was argued that the MFA should be retained indefinitely to protect home industries. In the words of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson),
  "we can have free trade only if we have fair trade."—[Official Report, 9 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 567.]
  To be fair, those are arguments that the Government have taken seriously and, to their credit, they have commissioned reports from Professor Silberston in 1984 and 1989, upon the latter of which they are still consulting.
  1294
  Equally, it is a disgrace that the EC, which will effectively be doing the substantive negotiations on the MFA, did not commission such reports and wrote to an important part of the textile industry recently saying:
  "The Commission itself is not undertaking scientific studies on the effects of the MFA, because it is lacking the resources which would be necessary to carry out a comprehensive assessment."
  Nevertheless, it is my contention that the MFA should be phased out as quickly as practicable—within five years rather than the seven to 10 years favoured by Professor Silberston and the 10 years-plus favoured by the industry, for the following reasons.
  First, the MFA is only a finger in the dyke of more fundamental economic forces that have seen the clothing exports of developing countries' share of the British market increase from 10 per cent. in 1955 to 48 per cent. in 1982. Secondly, the rate of import penetration has increased over that period. Textile imports have increased from 8 per cent. to 48 per cent., and clothing imports from 12 per cent. to 38 per cent. Thirdly, despite the panoply of controls under the MFA, five sixths of textile imports apparently come from countries not covered by the agreement, and two thirds of those come from Europe, which accounts for no less than £1·75 billion of our £3·6 billion textiles deficit.
  Silberston makes the point that the MFA masks a rather awkward truth: that Britain's textile industry was not doing very well in its home European market, having exported to that market only 15 per cent. of its turnover, compared with France's 21 per cent., West Germany's 34 per cent. and Belgium's 80 per cent.
  Fourthly, the Retail Consortium has argued that quotas mean that developing countries concentrate on higher value-added, higher-priced and higher-margin products which compete directly with the British textile industry and, as a result, militate against the United Kingdom's poorer consumers, who should be helped most by the developing countries' specialising in lower-value products.
  The final argument is the strongest of all: that the MFA is, in effect, a very regressive tax. According to Silberston, the British people pay £900 million a year to subsidise an industry that would otherwise be restructuring itself—as Japan's textile industry has done—or diversifying to higher value-added products. Opposition Members—none of whom is present at this time of night—argue strongly against a progressive eye test and dental charge that raises £110 million a year, while supporting and seeking to retain a regressive £900 million tax that falls mainly on the least fortunate
  Ending the MFA would, of course, lead to a loss of jobs in the short term—Professor Silberston mentions a figure of 33,000. Even if that figure were doubled, however, the amount saved in terms of consumption would be twice the average pay of each worker. There is little doubt that the additional spending power available to British consumers, and the additional opportunities for British firms to export to newly industrialised countries, would mean the creation of more jobs to compensate.
  Everyone recognises that ending the MFA would have transitional effects, particularly in certain regions of the United Kingdom—the north-west, Scotland and Northern Ireland are cited by Silberston. British export opportunities, and opportunities for import substitution in the home market, would depend on a level playing field, and

  1295
  on the developing countries' obeying GATT rules after the downgrading of the MFA quota system. I am sure that the Government are aware of that: the Minister will have seen the comprehensive statement made in July by the European Economic Commission's negotiating group on textiles and clothing, which mentioned a number of important respects in which GATT must be improved if the MFA is to be abolished without undue disruption of the British textile industry.
  I nevertheless feel that the MFA should be gradually reduced over a five-year period, and that quotas should be progressively increased, provided that GATT is strengthened. Article 9 of GATT provides safeguards for countries which believe that imports are threatening a sector of their economy. They should be made more selective. Action should be allowed against particular countries, and it should be possible to take action more quickly. The article should be interpreted on a national rather than on a continental basis, or EEC imports, coming particularly via East Germany to West Germany, may be targeted on the British market and may disrupt our industry to a far greater extent than in other EEC countries.
  The investigative powers of the textile surveillance body, or its equivalent body when the transitional period ends, should be improved to allow sampling against the state subsidies that are likely to cause disruption in the textile markets.
  Settlement procedures for trading disputes should be made more effective through majority voting, not consensus.
  In that way, the MFA could gradually be phased out over a five-year period and integrated into a strengthened and more comprehensive set of GATT rules. A significant restrictive trade practice, which has a bad effect on consumers, particularly poor consumers in this country, could he removed. Wealth throughout the world could be improved through greater specialisation and efficiency, to our comparative advantage. A balance could be held between consumers, retailers and producers in Britain and abroad. I am sure that the Government will wish to ensure that progress on the gradual abolition of the MFA is vigorous, responsible and speedy. I trust that the Minister will be able to give me that assurance.
  2.11 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for initiating this most important debate. The only sadness for both of us is that it has to take place at this hour in the morning, owing to the problems over earlier business.
  My hon. Friend has put the case against protection and for maximising growth by liberating trade extremely well. He has stressed its importance to our consumers and to developing countries. His speech will stand alongside those of other hon. Members who in previous debates have put the case for the textile industry, which is well known to Ministers. I am delighted to have his ideas on record. We are conducting consultations, having studied the Silberston report.
  The textiles and clothing sector is of great significance to the United Kingdom economy and to all of us as consumers. Textiles and clothing is our fourth largest manufacturing industry, employing 9 per cent. of those
  1296
  employed in manufacturing. In 1988 it had a total output of approximately £12 billion, of which over £3·6 billion was exported. As consumers, we spent in the same year some £17 billion at retail prices.
  The present MFA protocol, MFA IV, expires in July 1991. Since the MFA was established in 1974 to replace earlier arrangements relating only to cotton products. the arrangements have been renewed three times. The difference this time is that the future of the MFA is not being looked at in isolation but as an integral part of the GATT Uruguay round, which is due to end in 1990. These are ambitious negotiations, in which the Community is only one of the players. With more than a year to go, not all the cards are yet on the table, but I can reaffirm the Community's objectives.
  There are based on the commitment made by all GATT contracting parties in the Punta del Este declaration at the beginning of the Uruguay round
  "to examine the modalities for the eventual return of textiles and clothing to strengthened GATT rules".
  The MFA is a major exception to GATT rules, justified as a temporary measure to allow industry in developed countries to restructure in response to orderly growth in low-cost competition.
  For developing countries, better access for their textile and clothing exports is a key objective for the Uruguay round. In their view, many of the other issues in the round will be of advantage principally to developed countries. They believe that this proposal will maximise growth in their own countries. For countries at an early stage of development, textiles and clothing are one of the few manufactured products they can successfully export. Such countries would certainly argue that, if they are to achieve sustained economic growth—and hence in due course become attractive markets for our exporters—they must have the opportunity to sell the products in which they are competitive. Textiles offer them a path to prosperity.
  Community views of the MFA are not just a response to pressure from developing countries, important though that is. Any effective import restriction also imposes costs on the consumer. It is clear that the complicated network of MFA quotas also distorts international trade by providing an incentive for internationally mobile industry to move to unrestricted countries or to switch to products outside quota control even where these might not otherwise be rational choices. In addition, the continued existence of such an important exception to the GATT rules tends to undermine the whole multilateral system. For this reason, the Community is committed to negotiate about phasing out the MFA on acceptable terms.
  I must stress that this is a matter for the Community as a whole, and not for the United Kingdom alone. A common commercial policy was created by the treaty of Rome, and it is the Community that is a party to the NI FA and to the bilateral agreements negotiated under it with exporting countries. EC regulations implementing the arrangements have the force of law in the United Kingdom. It is also the Commission that negotiates on behalf of the Community in the GATT round, although on the basis of general policy positions agreed by the member states.
  There is therefore no question of the United Kingdom going it alone. Of course, we want to play our full part in internal Community discussions. That means keeping in close touch with developments in the GATT and with the views of industry and other interested parties in the United

  1297
  Kingdom. The objectives are set by the Community as a whole and, at the end of the Uruguay round, it will have to decide collectively whether they have been achieved sufficiently.
  The essential issues in the GATT negotiations will be the timing of the phasing out, the method and the conditions. The Community set out its general objectives in a paper presented in July to the GATT negotiating group on textiles and clothing, which proposes that the gradual integration of textiles and clothing into GATT would proceed in parallel with the application of strengthened rules and disciplines. These ideas will need to be translated into more precise proposals.
  To assist us in playing our part in more detailed consideration of the EC's negotiating position, we commissioned Professor Silberston to prepare a report on the MFA and its implications for the United Kingdom economy which was published on 19 October. We have invited comments on it.
  The report runs to some 120 pages and provides a number of facts and estimates. Professor Silberston estimates that the extra competition brought about by ending MFA restrictions would result in an average fall of about 5 per cent. in retail clothing prices in the United Kingdom, leading to some increase in demand. The fall in yarn and fabric prices would be rather lower. He estimates the gain to consumers as some £980 million at 1988 prices. He has given a range of estimates of the effect on employment, while accepting that any overall estimate is bound to be crude, as there are considerable differences in the vulnerability to competition of particular sectors.
  The effect on employment would be spread over a number of years, and there would be offsetting effects over time in other sectors of the economy that might benefit. We welcome further comments on these estimates, and I hope that they will be backed up by reasoned arguments. While there will always be disagreement about exact figures, every study of the MFA that I am aware of has concluded that the restrictions impose a net cost on the economy of developed countries.
  Because we are awaiting other comments on the report, we will have to consider all the responses carefully before forming a detailed view. The main issues for discussion in GATT are clear. It is accepted that the integration of textiles and clothing into GATT could only be gradual and progressive. My hon. Friend agrees. He is tonight debating the exact time involved. There will have to be further debate about just how long a period this implies, in the light of our consultation findings. Timing is an issue on
  1298
  which the Community has not yet adopted a precise negotiating position, so we are still in time to influence that debate.
  We shall also need to consider carefully what arrangements would be appropriate for the transitional phase. A steady increase in quota growth rates is one obvious option, but there are other possible techniques and we must consider whether certain categories of product or certain kinds of exporting country should be given special treatment.
  The controversial issue in the negotiations is the interpretation of the Punta del Este declaration on the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines if the MFA is to be successfully phased out. The Community paper made clear its view that strengthened rules and disciplines included more effective safeguard measures, greater market access through the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, particularly in newly industrialised economies, and the creation of fair competitive conditions in relation to unfair trade, protection of intellectual property and access to raw materials. This is an ambitious position, but these aims form part of the Community's wider objectives for the round as a whole and not just in relation to textiles. They will have to be judged against that background. A more effective GATT framework is, in our view, in the interest of all participants.
  I know that there is already concern in the industry about increased imports, although not all of them are from countries covered by the MFA. I can understand the fears about job losses, even if restrictions are phased out gradually. Clearly some sectors are more vulnerable than others to competition from low-cost imports. In addition, nothing that we can negotiate in GATT will prevent taste and fashion from changing the prospects for particular businesses. Under the spur of competition, however, the industry in the United Kingdom has made considerable gains in productivity, partly as a result of investment in new technology. High-quality products hold their own in export markets as well as at home, and the United Kingdom industry must be able to respond quickly and flexibly to the demands of increasingly sophisticated consumers in the domestic market. The right balance is to work with our Community partners for greater competition and consumer choice within the framework of more effective GATT rules and disciplines.
  The Government will consider what further representations to make to the EC about the handling of the negotiations once we have seen all the replies to Silberston and once we have had a chance to sift the evidence about the balance of advantage on the issues that I mentioned.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty one minutes past Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Rudolf Hess
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 7 November to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Jones report on the circumstances of the death of Rudolf Hess.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The document which the hon. Member refers to as the Jones report is a report submitted by the Metropolitan police to the Director of Public Prosecutions setting out the result of a police investigation into an alleged criminal offence. Such reports are confidential.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from Members.

  Mr. Ridley
  The majority of letters from hon. Members should receive a substantive reply within three weeks. Exceptionally, replies to some letters about matters receiving considerable public attention at the time of writing may be delayed until a substantive reply can be sent.

  European Trade Mark
  Mr. Iain Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current negotiations on the establishment of a common European trade mark and the location of the proposed European trade mark office.

  Mr. Forth
  There has been no progress on either issue in recent months. Earlier this year the European Community devoted its efforts to negotiations with other countries on the international registration of marks. These were successfully concluded at a diplomatic conference in June. Indications are that negotiations on the European Community trade mark system will resume next year.

  Chocolate Eggs (Safety)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in the light of the death of Jennifer Ashton aged three on 6 November, he will consider the safety aspects of Kinder chocolate eggs and their contents; and if he will urge their withdrawal from sale pending any recommendations for their improved safety.

  Mr. Forth
  I was saddened to learn of the death of baby Jennifer Ashton. My Department is seeking full information on all the circumstances and this will of course 712
  include the findings of the coroner's inquest which is to be held on 10 November. When all the facts are available I will give the matter my urgent attention. I hope that the considerable media attention which this tragic accident has attracted will alert parents to the dangers which can be associated with small toys and their parts.

  Common Air Interface
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the common air interface; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The common air interface has been issued by my Department as a standard, with the reference MPT 1375. It has been notified as a United Kingdom national standard to the European Commission under the procedure laid down in directive 83/189/EEC. My Department is currently preparing to issue an accompanying test specification schedule. A number of other European countries are considering adopting this standard.

  CT2
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals to specify technical standards for CT2 following the grant of licences to four consortia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The technical standards for CT2 have for the most part already been specified. Equipment has to satisfy the requirements of the standards BS6833 and MPT 1334. It is intended that by the end of next year the Telepoint operators will be obliged by conditions of their licences to install the common air interface in their base stations. Equipment using this interface will have to satisfy the standard MPT1375. A test specification schedule to this standard is in preparation. At some future time, after consulting the industry and taking advice from the Director General of Telecommunications, consideration will be given to the general adoption of the common air interface for Telepoint equipment. It is not expected that the adoption of this interface will be mandatory for CT2 equipment which is not capable of being used for Telepoint.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy at the next European Council of Industry Ministers on 14 November in Brussels, to introduce initiatives on(a) recycling of materials, including paper, packaging, metals and chemicals, (b) environmental protection for industrial plants, in regard to potential trans-frontier pollution and (c) energy policies in industry to reduce carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbon release to help mitigate the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Forth
  Environmental issues such as those cited by the hon. Gentleman have important implications for business and it may be expected that these will in due course be considered by the Council of Industry Ministers. However, there are no plans to raise them at the meeting on 14 November.

  The agenda for Council of Ministers meetings is determined by the presidency which is currently held by France.
  713
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has been invited to participate in the seminar on waste incineration and the environment, to be held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London on 13 December.

  Mr. Forth
  Two members of the pollution abatement division of Warren Spring laboratory will be attending this conference.

ENVIRONMENT

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of support provided to local authorities through the rate support grant for the supply of wheelchairs.

  Mr. Chope
  The Disablement Services Authority which is a centrally funded special health authority provides wheelchairs free to all those with a clinical need, generally on the recommendation of a general practitioner, occupational therapist or physiotherapist. There is therefore no need for support to local authorities through rate support grant.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what protection there will be for private sector tenants who at the moment pay contractual rental inclusive of rates upon the introduction of the community charge; and how tenants will be protected where landlords do not wish to settle on the basis of individual contracts.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 9 May at column 386. We are preparing an explanatory booklet for tenants about rent and rates, and reference to this will be included in the prescribed notes attached to community charge bills.

  Mobility Back-up
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make provision for a statutory back-up to mobility across all tenures and providers.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received the report of the mobility working party and will make an announcement soon.

  Aerials
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish his consultative document on aerials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We hope to be able to issue a consultation paper on planning controls over satellite television antennas and other telecommunications development within the next two or three months.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for his decision not to meet representatives from Greenpeace (United Kingdom) to discuss environmental policies and environmental protection.
  714
  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has made no such decision. He expects to meet representatives of Greenpeace in the next few weeks.

  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in establishing an agency responsible for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is too early to consider whether an agency will be required to be responsible for the final disposal of heat generating or high level radioactive waste. This waste is being stored at British Nuclear Fuels' site at Sellafield for at least 50 years to enable a reduction in the heat and radioactivity to take place before disposal.

  Sunderland Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has as to the number of full-time equivalent jobs that will arise within(a) the Hylton colliery area and (b) the Southwick shipyard area of the Sunderland enterprise zone by the end of each year from 1990 to 1994, inclusive, listing the estimated numbers separately for each of the areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is estimated that, when fully developed, these and the other parts of the proposed Sunderland enterprise zone may together give rise to some 3,000 to 4,000 jobs. It is not practicable to break this down further, as the timing and location will depend inter alia on the progress of reclamation and development and the decisions of individual firms.

  Rutland Water
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information is available to the National Rivers Authority about(a) the specific extent of the toxicity of the blue-green algae at Rutland Water in early September; and whether that toxic level was a normal seasonal phenomenon and (b) whether any animals died as a result of toxic blue-green algae poisoning at any other reservoirs under the scrutiny of the National Rivers Authority during the period in question;

  (2) whether he will place in the Library and make available to Rutland district council and Leicestershire country council (a) the scientific findings relating to the death of animals at Rutland Water carried out by the National Rivers Authority, (b) the similar investigations and reports by Dundee university on behalf of Anglian Water and (c) information made available to the National Rivers Authority as a result of post-mortems by veterinary surgeons following the death of dogs and sheep.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I understand that the NRA has results of mammalian toxicity tests performed in September which showed the blue-green algae in Rutland Water to be highly toxic. It is not possible to determie whether or not the level of toxicity at Rutland Water was a normal seasonal phenomenon, although blooms of blue-green algae in later summer are a common occurrence in many waters of the United Kingdom. Apart from Rutland Water, the NRA has no knowledge of animal deaths elsewhere which can be attributed to toxic blue-green algae.
  715
  Data from monitoring the algae at Rutland Water have been made available to the appropriate local authority environmental health officers and this, together with the results of the toxicological work commissioned from Dundee university, is also included on the public register maintained by the NRA. Studies and post mortems on animal deaths at Rutland Water connected with the algae have been carried out by the veterinary service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I understand that final results are not yet available.

TRANSPORT

  M20 (Improvements)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the proposed improvements to the M20 between junctions 5 and 8 will be completed before the opening of the Channel tunnel;

  (2) what is the estimated completion date for the improvement of the M20 between junctions 5 and 8;

  (3) when he expects to let the contracts for improvement of the M20 between junctions 5 and 8.

  Mr. Atkins
  The timing of contract letting will depend on the outcome of the statutory procedures, but subject to that it is our aim to complete the improvement before the Channel tunnel opens.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest available traffic flow figures on each link of the M20 motorway from junction 5 to junction 8.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures based on 24-hour annual average daily two-way traffic flows in 1987 are as follows:

  Numbers

  Between junctions 5 and 6

  61,000

  Between junctions 6 and 7

  46,000

  Between junctions 7 and 8

  24,000

  Intermodal Transport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department had any representation at, or presented any papers to, the conference on intermodal transport and the single European market in Paris on 9 and 10 November.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate what would be the impact on local poll tax payers if the whole of the outstanding debt on the Humber bridge was carried by people(a) within the city of Hull boundary and (b) within the county of Humberside boundary.

  Mr. Atkins
  Current discussion with the Humber Bridge Board will lead to the production of estimates of the effect of the recent toll increase on their debts. Although the Humber bridge legislation provides that deficiencies in toll revenue should be met by local taxpayers none of the estimates to be made will assume that the whole debt is met by them. In agreeing to treat the 716
  Humber bridge as a special case for assistance, the Government have accepted that they will have a part to play.

  Traffic Information Broadcasts
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department received about the closing of the north and southbound carriageways of the A1 near Welwyn Garden City on Friday 27 October, due to an accident; when the BBC were informed; and what information he has on the timing of broadcasts by the BBC to warn motorists of the traffic chaos.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's agent, Hertfordshire county council, was notified of this incident by the police as soon as it was evident that its assistance would be required.

  The BBC learnt of the accident from Hertfordshire police at 14.35 and broadcast the first bulletin on Radios 1 and 2 during the next 10 to 15 minutes. This was updated regularly throughout the afternoon.

  Fare Increases (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he received from London Regional Transport for proposed percentage fare increases in 1990; what increases he agreed to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has discussions with LRT covering the whole range of LRT finances, as part of the annual public expenditure survey. Final decisions on fares rest with the LRT board.

  Rat-running
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards are being considered to prevent rat running arising from the introduction of the autoguide system in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 gives the Secretary of State power, in licensing driver information systems, to impose conditions about the roads on which systems can direct traffic. The need for such conditions in relation to a commercial Autoguide scheme will be considered in the light of the results of the proposed London pilot scheme. The local authority associations and the police will be closely involved in monitoring such a scheme.

  Drowning Incident
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek the publication of the taped telephone and radio calls between callers to the Barnstaple 999 centre, Her Majesty's Coastguard and the emergency services relating to the accidental drowning of Mark Woodward on 16 August.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's Coastguard tapes relating to this incident were kept and were available at the coroner's inquest. Following the inquest they were cleaned and put back into service. I understand that British Telecom plc has a similar arrangement for the recording of 999 calls. Any request for access to BT tapes should be made directly to BT.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tapajos Project
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy considerations lie behind British support for the Tapajos project.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have not agreed to provide support to this project from the aid programme, but only to explore the possibility of doing so. I understand that the aim of the project is to promote sustainable forest management and to provide demonstration areas in which to develop such management practices; these are relevant to the needs of Brazil and other countries.

DEFENCE

  Halons and CFCs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent halons and chlorofluorocarbons are used for defence applications in the United Kingdom and by British forces abroad.

  Mr. Neubert
  Halons are widely used in fire-fighting systems. Chlorofluorocarbons are used for air conditioning/refrigeration equipment, aerosol propellants, and cleaning purposes (solvents) and are present in manufactured items such as insulation material.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for reducing the use of halons and chlorofluorocarbons for defence applications, as a contribution to protecting the ozone layer.

  Mr. Neubert
  The testing and demonstration of fire-fighting systems based on the use of halons has already been curtailed. Plans exist to replace chlorofluorocarbons unfriendly to the ozone layer by alternative, ozone-friendly, substances as they become available. Steps have already been taken to reduce the emissions of CFC's in certain areas.

  Electromagnetic Interference
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest precautions his Department is taking to reduce the potential hazard arising from electromagnetic interference to(a) ground based, (b) airborne and (c) seaborne nuclear weapon systems.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All nuclear weapon systems are designed to minimise their vulnerability to hazards such as electromagnetic interference. Standard safety procedures ensure that nuclear weapons are only handled, maintained or transported under conditions where the possibility of hazards is extremely remote. These procedures are kept constantly under review.

  Microwave Transmission (Soviet Union)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the purpose of the powerful microwave transmission from the Soviet Union beamed at the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have no information on powerful microwave transmissions from the Soviet Union beamed at the United Kingdom.
  718
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in the past five years in the microwave transmission intensity radiated to the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union and known as the woodpecker signal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have no information on microwave transmissions radiated to the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union. "Woodpecker" is a high frequency over-the-horizon radar transmission to which there has been no change over the last five years.

  Dunkirk Evacuation (Anniversary)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans are in train to mark the 50th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation; and what facilities are to be provided to enable members of the Dunkirk Veterans Association(a) from the United Kingdom and (b) from Commonwealth countries to participate in any planned commemorations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are considering requests for meservice participation in events in France to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation. We have no plans to provide official facilities to enable members of the Dunkirk Veterans Association from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth to participate in any of the planned commemorations.

  RAF Jets (Cameras)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for replacing the 16mm cine cameras on Royal Air Force fast jets and jet-trainer aircraft with video cameras.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As a general rule, it is our intention that all new fast jet aircraft should be fitted with video cameras. Cine cameras on older aircraft are being replaced by video cameras where this is deemed cost effective.

  RAF Jets
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards equipping all crews of Royal Air Force fast jets and jet-trainer aircraft with self-inflating life jackets and dinghies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We intended to equip all fast jet and jet trainer aircrew with automatically inflating life-saving jackets. These have already been issued to Phantom aircrew, though the automatic inflation capability is not yet operational. The contract to equip the rest of the fast jet force has recently been awarded and it hoped that all the RAF's needs will be met by the end of 1991. All appropriate aircrew are already equipped with dinghies; these are easily inflatable manually and studies do not suggest that provision of a self-inflating variety would improve aircrew survival.

  Electronic Warfare
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action his Department is taking to prepare for defensive and offensive electronic warfare;

  (2) what plans he has to counteract the effects of electronic warfare signals beamed at the United Kingdom.
  719
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  War Widows
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of applying the Ministry of Defence occupational pension to all war widows widowed prior to 1973; how many extra widows would then become entitled; and what would be the estimated average increase in pension per widow that they would then receive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Separate figures relating to those war widows whose husbands died before 31 March 1973 are not available. The attributable forces family pension introduced into the armed forces occupational scheme in 1973 is payable only to those war widows whose husbands gave service on or after 31 March 1973. The cost of paying such a pension to all war widows whose husbands' service ended before that date, at current rates, is estimated to be around £200 million a year. About 52,000 war widows would benefit and the average increase in pension received per widow, on that basis, would he approximately £74 per week.

THE ARTS

  European Literary Prize
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he is yet in a position to respond to the request from the hon. Member for Paisley, South that the proposed European literary prize should be launched in 1990 in Glasgow as the European City of Culture.

  Mr. Luce
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for having made the suggestion that the new European literary prize should be launched in Glasgow in 1990. I am pleased to say that at their informal meeting on 2 November 1989, EC Ministers responsible for cultural affairs welcomed this proposal on my recommendation.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Centre for Policy Studies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service under what circumstances, and on whose authority, civil servants are permitted to participate in the deliberations of the Centre for Policy Studies; whether they are allowed to advise that body; and whether that body makes any payment for the professional expertise provided by such civil servants.

  Mr. Luce
  Guidance on the circumstances in which civil servants may attend or participate in activities organised by outside bodies such as the Centre for Policy Studies is set out in chapter 6 of the personnel management handbook, which also covers the question of payment. Copies of the handbook are available in the House Libraries.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of current personal sector debt is accounted for by consumer credit; what percentage of the consumer debt is in the form of credit card borrowing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  At the end of 1988 consumer credit formed 14 per cent. of personal sector borrowing. At that time bank credit card lending formed 16 per cent. of consumer credit. More recent but less complete figures indicate that there has been no change since then in the proportion of consumer credit represented by credit card borrowing.

  Building Societies Act
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has regarding the interpretation placed upon section 100 of the Building Societies Act 1986 by the Building Societies Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have nothing to add to the guidance issued by the Building Societies Commission on 20 October, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. This sets out the Building Societies Commission's interpretation of section 100. Nothing in the guidance calls into question the validity of schemes along the lines of that adopted by Abbey National.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce legislation to amend section 100 of the Building Societies Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no such plans.

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many credit unions have been established in each of the past 20 years; what is the approximate size of membership of each of these credit unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The number of credit unions registered since the coming into operation of the Credit Unions Act 1979, which provided the first statutory framework for credit unions in Great Britain, has been:

  Number

  1979

  2

  1980

  55

  1981

  16

  1982

  8

  1983

  2

  1984

  3

  1985

  2

  1986

  13

  1987

  16

  1988

  45

  11989

  44

  1 To 7 November.

  According to the most recent annual returns received by the registrar of friendly societies from each credit union registered in Great Britain, the average membership of all

  721
  credit unions is 141. However, there is considerable variation in membership levels, as the following table shows:

  Number of members

  Number of credit unions

  Less than 100

  109

  100 to 250

  44

  250 to 500

  23

  500 to 1,000

  8

  More than 1,000

  6

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to change the tax treatment of the receipt of workplace nursery provision by employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 3 November 1989 at column 361.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Mark and Veronika Proekt and their sons, Alexander and Simon, of Leningrad.

  Mr. Maude
  We have not previously raised this particular case with the Soviet authorities, but we shall be happy to do so if my hon. Friend will provide the necessary details about this case.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Boris Tsirelson, and his parents, Simon and Esther, of Leningrad.

  Mr. Maude
  We take every opportunity to press the Soviet authorities on individual refusenik cases such as that of the Tsirelson family. This case was last raised when my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 29 September. We shall maintain our pressure until the Tsirelson family is allowed to emigrate.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Emmanuel and Judith Lurie, of Moscow.

  Mr. Maude
  We take every opportunity to press the Soviet authorities on individual refusenik cases such as Emmanuel and Judith Lurie. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this case when he met Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 29 September. We have recently heard the very welcome news that Emmanuel and Judith Lurie have at last received permission to emigrate from the USSR.
  722
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Boris and Anna Klemberg, of Kiev.

  Mr. Maude
  Boris Klemberg recently received permission to emigrate and is now in Israel with his daughter. We shall now include Anna Klemberg among those refusenik cases on which we press the Soviet authorities.

  Israel-South Africa (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the United Kingdom ambassadors to South Africa, Israel and the United Nations on the allegation made by the United States security services that the Israelis and South Africans are jointly developing a nuclear-capable launch vehicle and a compatible atomic warhead.

  Mr. Maude
  We are aware of the recent reports in the press to which the question refers. Any collaboration between Israel and South Africa in nuclear weapon or ballistic missile research would be a matter for serious concern. It is not our policy to comment on the substance of confidential diplomatic correspondence.

  Microwave Transmission
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protection has been provided to embassy staff and buildings in Moscow and elsewhere to counteract the effects of microwave radiation.

  Mr. Maude
  For security reasons, we do not divulge details of measures taken to protect Her Majesty's overseas missions and their staff.

PRIME MINISTER

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the homeless people sleeping on the South Bank.

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

  Central and Eastern Europe
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning Her Majesty's Government's response to political events in central and eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received many representations on this subject, from hon. Members, the public and interested organisations. The Government greatly welcome current developments in Poland and in Hungary which are moving towards democracy, freedom and market-based economic systems. We are taking many practical steps to aid this process and we are prepared to do more. We hope that other countries in the region will evolve in the same way and that current changes in the GDR will continue.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit Stevenage.

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

  European Council
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the proposals made by the president of the Council on monetary union and other matters on 25 October.

  The Prime Minister
  The issue of economic and monetary union will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the European council in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December. The President of the Council will no doubt present any proposals he wishes to make at that meeting.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit Edmonton.

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

  Port Glasgow
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Port Glasgow in the near future.

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

  South Hams
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit South Hams.

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

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what representatives she has received from organisations representing the fishing boat building industry regarding the state of the industry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry received a delegation from the Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers Association on 2 November at which the current problems of the fishing boat building industry were discussed.

  The Commission has imposed a ban on state aid to fund boat building, but there are support measures available for the industry to help it to develop new products and export services to help in identifying and developing new markets.

  Ministers (Financial Affairs)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what safeguards are in place to ensure that Ministers or former Ministers do not allow stockholding companies or financial intermediaries handling their personal affairs to trade in stocks where price-sensitive information has been made available;

  (2) what safeguards are in place to ensure that former Ministers do not give price-sensitive information to stock market traders; whether any breaches have occurred in the period 1982 to 1988; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  For any individual knowingly to deal on the basis of unpublished price-sensitive information obtained (directly or indirectly) from an insider is a criminal offence under the insider dealing legislation. As has been the practice under successive 724
  Governments, Ministers are given advice, on taking up office, on steps which should be taken and action from which they should refrain in respect of any investments they may hold or acquire so as to avoid a conflict of interest. This includes the advice that Ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities about which they have, or may be thought to have, early or confidential information likely to affect the price of those securities. I am unaware of any breaches of the legislation by Ministers or former Ministers having occurred in the period 1982–88.

  Aging
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she takes to co-ordinate Government policy on aging and related issues.

  The Prime Minister
  Elderly people, like all other groups in society, are affected by the policies of many different Government Departments. Consequently there are many occasions when policies cannot be made in isolation and Ministers and officials in different Government Departments consult each other as necessary. I am satisfied that these consultations permit issues to be dealt with speedily and effectively.

  Cabinet Secretary
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her practice on the attendance of the Cabinet Secretary at Commonwealth heads of government conferences.

  The Prime Minister
  With my agreement, it is the practice of the present Secretary of the Cabinet not to accompany me to Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings, or on other overseas visits, in order to permit him to use these opportunities to visit Civil Service locations outside London in his capacity as head of the home Civil Service.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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

WALES

  Community Charge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the average cost per family in Newport that will be demanded by the community charge.

  Mr. Grist
  If Welsh local authorities spend in line with standard spending assessments for 1990–91 the average community charge in Wales will be £175. However, until relevant population figures from community charge registers are available it would be misleading and unhelpful to produce illustrative figures for individual authorities for 1990–91. Ultimately it will be for local authorities themselves to set their budgets and fix actual community charge levels in spring 1990.

  Hospital Ward Closures
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) against what criteria he expects health authorities in Wales to have taken decisions on possible ward closures during the Christmas period;

  (2) how many beds will be involved in ward closures during the Christmas period in each health authority in Wales;

  (3) if he will give, for each health authority in Wales, the average number of days per bed that will be involved in ward closures during the Christmas period;

  (4) if he will list the ward closures during the Christmas period planned by each health authority in Wales;

  (5) what arrangements have been made by each health authority in Wales to guarantee the comfort and wellbeing of any patients affected by ward closures during the Christmas period;

  (6) what categories of speciality are involved in possible hospital ward closures during the Christmas period in each health authority area in Wales;

  (7) what guidance he has offered to health authorities in Wales in regard to meeting the personal needs of patients affected by ward closures during the Christmas period.

  Mr. Grist
  Arrangements for the provision of hospital services over the Christmas period are operational matters for the district health authorities concerned.

  Announcements
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he employs in deciding whether to make an announcement by oral statement in the House, by written answer, by depositing papers in the Library or by press notice; and how these criteria were applied to his announcement of the proposed system of Welsh revenue support grant on 6 November.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on Monday 6 November.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current or most recent salary level for the administrator post in respect of each of the family practitioner committees in Wales.
  726
  Mr. Grist
  The current salary bands which apply to each of the FPC administrator posts in Wales are shown in the table:

  Salary

  FPC

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Clwyd

  22,404

  27,258

  Dyfed

  22,404

  26,210

  Gwent

  22,404

  27,258

  Gwynedd

  20,714

  24,233

  Mid Glamorgan

  22,404

  27,258

  Powys

  20,714

  23,301

  South Glamorgan

  22,404

  27,258

  West Glamorgan

  22,404

  27,258

  The maximum salary figures for all the posts except that of Powys FPC reflect an element of salary protection consequent upon assimilation onto the new pay scale for NHS administrative and clerical staff applicable from 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what salary level has been set for the chief executive's post in respect of each family practitioner committee in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The flat rate salaries currently proposed for the FPC general manager posts in Wales are shown in the table:

  FPC

  Salary £

  Clwyd

  29,300

  Dyfed

  28,300

  Gwent

  29,300

  Gwynedd

  28,300

  Mid Glamorgan

  30,400

  Powys

  25,500

  South Glamorgan

  29,300

  West Glamorgan

  29,300

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of advertising the posts of chief executive for each of the family practitioner committees in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The new general manager posts for the family practitioner committees in Wales were advertised by means of a comprehensive advertisement in the national and specialist health service press. The cost of this was £13,257.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of appointing chief executives to the family practitioner committees in Wales, including advertisers, costs of interviews, travel and meetings for everyone involved, and the costs of staff time involved.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not yet available as the appointment exercise is only now being completed and several final accounts have still to be presented.

  A55 Expressway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to protect the environment of North Wales consequent upon the completion of the A55 Expressway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am confident that planning authorities will in discharging their responsibilities continue to take full account of the need for balance between conservation and new development.
  727
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received a copy of the Institute of Welsh Affairs report entitled "Prospects for North Wales: the New A55 Expressway;" and if he will make a statement on his response to its recommendations.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The chairman of the institute forwarded a copy of the report to me on 11 October. I attach a copy of my response which I am also placing in the Library.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a task force to respond to the effects of the A55 Expressway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I expect to make an announcement before the end of the year in response to the views which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has sought on how the opportunities presented by the A55 improvements can best be used to the advantage of north Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the annual increase in inward migration in Wales consequent upon the completion of the A55 Expressway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The mid-year estimates of population for Gwynedd and Clwyd indicate an increasing net inward migration since 1981 into both counties. I would expect this trend to continue as the A55 improvements bring forward further opportunities for industrial and economic development.

  BP Plant (Balan Bay)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution to investigate the potential dangers to the local population in South Wales from the incident on 6 July at the British Petroleum Balan Bay plant.

  Mr. Grist
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has already investigated this incident and are satisfied that there was no danger to the local population on account of atmospheric emissions from the plant.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department plays its part in testing those procedures in which it has an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the detail requested.

  Registered Unemployed
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the changes in social security on the number of registered unemployed.
  728
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We expect the changes will result in a reduction of some 50,000.

  Local Office, Norcross
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time it takes his Department's office at Norcross, Blackpool to reply to letters from(a) claimants and (b) hon. Members; and what steps are being taken to speed up the process.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the average time taken to reply to letters from claimants is not available, but the quality of service provided by the Department's offices at Norcross is currently being monitored. The average time taken to reply to letters from hon. and right hon. Members is between five and six days.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of support for the provision of wheelchairs for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for the Disablement Services Authority to which my hon. Friend may wish to address his question.

  Hostel Board and Lodging Charges
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements will be made, following the recent changes to hostel board and lodging charges, to cover charges for ineligible services once the present transitional arrangement period ends; and what is the position for the payment of ineligible services payments for new hostels.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Hostel dwellers are expected to meet their normal, day-to-day service charges from income support, in the same way as other income support recipients. As explained in the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 16 March (Official Report, column 546), from April 1991 the money expended by the central unit to maintain hostel income will be transferred to existing funding sources. We would expect hostels to take this into account when setting their charges. The Department of Social Security has transferred a total of over £2 million in a full year to the Department of the Environment, Scottish and Welsh Offices to help certain new hostels.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the overall cost of(a) increasing the rate of income support for all single people under 25 years to the same rate as those over 25 years and (b) extending entitlement to full income support to all those under 18 years in receipt of bridging allowance, special hardship allowance and those registered as waiting for a YTS place with no other income; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of the total social security budget.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The overall estimate cost of(a) increasing the rate of income support (and aligned income-related benefits) for all single people under 25 years is £205 million, or 0·4 per cent. of the total social

  729
  security budget, and (b) extending entitlement and giving the full income support personal allowance to all under 18 years in receipt of bridging allowance and "severe hardship" allowance is £12·5 million, or 0·025 per cent. of the total social security budget.

  Information about those registered as waiting for a YTS place is not available.

  Community Charge Rebate
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the numbers of adult residents of(a) each London borough and (b) each district council likely to be entitled to the maximum rebate, during the first year of operation of the community charge in England and Wales; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the estimated population of each local authority liable to community charge.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is not possible to estimate the number of adult residents in each local authority area who will be entitled to maximum community charge benefit in 1990–91. Current estimates suggest that, in Great Britain as a whole, between one quarter and one third of those liable to pay the full community charge will be entitled to community charge benefit.

  Tax Benefit Model Tables
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretry of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the 1989 edition of the tax benefit model tables.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Copies will be placed in the Library today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the Agricultural and Food Research Council's research and development budget.

  Mr. Jackson
  Grant-in-aid to the agricultural and food research Council in 1989–90 is expected to be £74·563 million. The figure for 1990–91 will be decided by my right hon. Friend after he has considered the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils later this year. The council will also receive in 1989–90 approximately £45·6 million in commissioned research from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and a further £16 million from other sources.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list(a) central Government and (b) local government expenditure on the youth service in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1984–85, (iii) 1985–86, (iv) 1986–87, (v) 1987–88 and (vi) 1988–89 in 1989 prices.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table.730

  Expenditure on the Youth Service—England (1988–89 Real Terms)

  Financial Year

  Central Government £ million

  Local Government £ million

  1979–80

  14

  132

  1984–85

  11

  159

  1985–86

  12

  159

  1986–87

  13

  171

  1987–88

  14

  197

  1988–89

  13

  1171

  1Estimated

  Notes

  (1) The figures given for central Government expenditure reflect direct expenditure by the Department to voluntary organisations and specific grant payments to local authorities in support of youth service activities as recorded by local authorities in their annual returns.

  (2) The figures given for local government expenditure reflect outturn as recorded by local authorities in their annual returns. This expenditure will not only have been supported by central Government specific grant payments, but also by unhypothecated rate support grant.

  (3) The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced to 1988–89 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator. They include recurrent and capital expenditure on the youth service.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority(a) 1988–1989 expenditure on the youth service and (b) the related grant-related expenditure allocation for each local education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Figures for the expenditure of local authorities in 1988–89 are not yet available. Table 1 shows the actual recurrent expenditure of each local education authority on youth and community services in 1987–88, with the exception of four authorities which failed to make a return. Table 2 shows the grant related expenditure assessment for the youth and related services for each local education authority in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Table 1

  Expenditure by local authorities on the youth service1

  LEA

  £ million

  Barking

  0·6277

  Barnet

  0·9704

  Bexley

  0·7829

  Brent

  3·6245

  Bromley

  0·8248

  Croydon

  0·8399

  Ealing

  n.a.

  Enfield

  0·6866

  Haringey

  n.a.

  Harrow

  0·6207

  Havering

  0·7041

  Hillingdon

  0·7136

  Hounslow

  0·7270

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0·5724

  Merton

  0·3763

  Newham

  0·9110

  Redbridge

  0·8766

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·3872

  Sutton

  0·4786

  Waltham Forest

  1·2862

  ILEA

  30·5352

  Birmingham

  4·1965

  Coventry

  0·9061

  Dudley

  0·8359

  Sandwell

  0·6573

  Solihull

  0·3864

  Walsall

  1·9555

  Wolverhampton

  0·8758

  Knowsley

  0·4879

  Liverpool

  2·1011

  731

  LEA

  £ million

  St. Helens

  Nil

  Sefton

  0·6090

  Wirral

  1·0252

  Bolton

  0·9214

  Bury

  0·8718

  Manchester

  2·2352

  Oldham

  0·6295

  Rochdale

  1·3196

  Salford

  0·5164

  Stockport

  0·7861

  Tameside

  1·0388

  Trafford

  0·5685

  Wigan

  0·8193

  Barnsley

  0·5193

  Doncaster

  1·3659

  Rotherham

  0·8892

  Sheffield

  n.a.

  Bradford

  2·8268

  Calderdale

  0·9297

  Kirklees

  1·3253

  Leeds

  2·5921

  Wakefield

  0·6777

  Gateshead

  0·7946

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1·1552

  North Tyneside

  0·5115

  South Tyneside

  1·5489

  Sunderland

  0·7333

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0014

  Avon

  4·0172

  Bedfordshire

  1·0577

  Berkshire

  n.a.

  Buckinghamshire

  2·1876

  Cambridgeshire

  1·6258

  Cheshire

  1·7389

  Cleveland

  2·3472

  Cornwall

  0·5328

  Cumbria

  1·2557

  Derbyshire

  4·5220

  Devon

  2·6109

  Dorset

  1·4586

  Durham

  1·1045

  East Sussex

  0·9809

  Essex

  3·3893

  Gloucestershire

  1·6986

  Hampshire

  2·8567

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·1929

  Hertfordshire

  2·4412

  Humberside

  3·1777

  Isle of Wight

  0·4175

  Kent

  2·2912

  Lancashire

  4·0522

  Leicestershire

  2·6153

  Lincolnshire

  1·0138

  Norfolk

  1·6031

  North Yorkshire

  1·4100

  Northamptonshire

  1·6093

  Northumberland

  0·6983

  Nottinghamshire

  4·6301

  Oxfordshire

  1·1005

  Shropshire

  1·5869

  Somerset

  1·9266

  Staffordshire

  2·4209

  Suffolk

  1·9660

  Surrey

  2·0726

  Warwickshire

  1·4359

  West Sussex

  1·3936

  Wiltshire

  1·4994

  Note:

  (1) The figures are based in LEA Expenditure Returns to the Department of the Environment.
  732

  Table 2

  Grant related expenditure assessment for the Youth Service

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Barking

  0·6466

  0·7247

  Barnet

  1·3569

  1·5983

  Bexley

  0·7781

  0·8854

  Brent

  1·704

  1·9525

  Bromley

  1·0066

  1·1557

  Croydon

  1·4463

  1·6359

  Ealing

  1·7228

  2·0186

  Enfield

  1·1923

  1·3698

  Haringey

  1·3051

  1·4829

  Harrow

  0·8502

  0·9768

  Havering

  0·8152

  0·9217

  Hillingdon

  0·8795

  1·0217

  Hounslow

  0·9910

  1·1627

  Kingston

  0·4396

  0·5051

  Merton

  0·664

  0·7675

  Newham

  1·5136

  1·7016

  Redbridge

  0·9299

  1·0807

  Richmond

  0·5254

  0·6010

  Sutton

  0·5622

  0·6358

  Waltham Forest

  1·1910

  1·3575

  ILEA

  13·5539

  15·7985

  Birmingham

  6·2099

  7·0554

  Coventry

  1·6513

  1·8607

  Dudley

  1·1429

  1·2853

  Sandwell

  1·6993

  1·9088

  Solihull

  0·7872

  0·8916

  Walsall

  1·2700

  1·4426

  Wolverhampton

  1·5820

  1·7882

  Knowsley

  0·9341

  1·0535

  Liverpool

  2·3518

  2·6738

  St. Helens

  0·7321

  0·8300

  Sefton

  1·1197

  1·2468

  Wirall

  1·3205

  1·5001

  Bolton

  1·2094

  1·3808

  Bury

  0·6528

  0·7389

  Manchester

  2·5769

  2·9052

  Oldham

  1·0371

  1·1889

  Rochdale

  0·9877

  1·1241

  Salford

  1·0763

  1·2145

  Stockport

  0·9997

  1·1194

  Tameside

  0·8632

  0·9825

  Trafford

  0·8517

  0·9529

  Wigan

  1·1906

  1·3396

  Barnsley

  0·8553

  0·9632

  Doncaster

  1·169

  1·3386

  Rotherham

  1·0344

  1·1806

  Sheffield

  2·1371

  2·4256

  Bradford

  2·6083

  2·998

  Calderdale

  0·8201

  0·9244

  Kirklees

  1·8524

  2·1149

  Leeds

  2·9679

  3·3513

  Wakefield

  1·1943

  1·3342

  Gateshead

  0·7803

  0·8785

  Newcastle

  1·1234

  1·2864

  North Tyne

  0·6706

  0·7416

  South Tyne

  0·6393

  0·7045

  Sunderland

  1·2265

  1·3969

  Isle of Scilly

  0·0082

  0·0086

  Avon

  3·2428

  3·7704

  Bedfordshire

  2·2661

  2·5803

  Berkshire

  2·9080

  3·3858

  Bucks

  2·3102

  2·6987

  Cambridge

  2·3576

  2·7287

  Cheshire

  3·5269

  4·0092

  Cleveland

  2·5817

  2·9118

  Cornwall

  1·4396

  1·6487

  Cumbria

  1·6178

  1·8312

  Derbyshire

  3·3976

  3·9118

  Devon

  3·1875

  3·6755

  Dorset

  1·9263

  2·2293

  Durham

  2·2334

  2·5561

  East Sussex

  2·0816

  2·4702

  Essex

  5·0704

  5·8156

  Gloucestershire

  1·8349

  2·0656

  Hampshire

  5·5135

  6·3066

  733

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  2·3375

  2·6699

  Hertfordshire

  3·4851

  3·9546

  Humberside

  3·4163

  3·8735

  Isle of Wight

  0·3722

  0·4282

  Kent

  5·4128

  6·1952

  Lancashire

  5·6399

  6·4836

  Leicester

  3·7412

  4·2788

  Lincolnshire

  1·9696

  2·3038

  Norfolk

  2·4064

  2·7636

  North Yorkshire

  2·2754

  2·6432

  Northants

  2·1373

  2·4591

  Northumberland

  0·9865

  1·1280

  Nottinghamshire

  4·0506

  4·6292

  Oxfordshire

  2·1233

  2·4258

  Shropshire

  1·5405

  1·7807

  Somerset

  1·5133

  1·7320

  Staffordshire

  3·6713

  4·1617

  Suffolk

  2·1397

  2·4045

  Surrey

  3·3897

  3·8675

  Warwickshire

  1·8544

  2·0837

  West Sussex

  2·0874

  2·4099

  Wiltshire

  2·0462

  2·3429

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, in the latest available figures, the number and percentage of vacancies for physical education teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  LEA returns to the Department's regular collection of vacancy data showed 162 vacancies for teachers of physical education in England in January 1989. This suggests a vacancy rate of 1·2 per cent.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce a working party on physical education under the provisions of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 7 November at columns 579–80.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals to reverse the decline in the number of researchers employed by(a) the agricultural and food research council, (b) the natural environment research council and (c) other research councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to suggest to the councils how many researchers they should employ. The numbers of researchers employed by the agricultural and food research council, natural environment research council and the three other research councils are matters for the councils themselves to determine within the resources available to them.

  School Governors
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had about the deselection of school governors by the Isle of Wight county council; and what advice he has given London education authorities about deselection of school governors on political grounds.
  734
  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received a number of representations concerning the removal from office of school governors appointed by local education authorities, including the Isle of Wight. These matters are currently being investigated.

  We have not issued advice to local education authorities generally on this subject. We are considering whether it would be appropriate to do so, following the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the case involving the Haberdashers' Aske's schools.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to relocate his Department's offices to the north-east of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Not at present. My Department is proposing to relocate a further 50 posts from London to its Darlington office during 1990. In addition, a senior official of the Department is about to undertake a study of the long-term location requirements of the Department in the light of the Government's policy on relocation. The study will consider various possibilities, including the handling of some functions regionally.

  Student Rents (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average student rent in London; and how much the average student in London will receive in housing benefit during term time.

  Mr. Jackson
  Data from a survey of undergraduate income and expenditure conducted by Research Services Limited in 1988–89 indicate that average rent payments for single students living in privately rented accommodation in London totalled £1,531 per student over the 1988–89 academic year. The average amount of housing benefit received by such students in the same period was £324.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the comparable average teachers' pay in 1979 and 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average salary of teachers in primary and secondary schools in April 1988 was £13,670. The equivalent figure in 1979 (at 1988 prices) was £10,493.

  State Schools (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last visited a state school in Nottingham.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has not yet visited a state school in Nottingham.

  Church Aided and Voluntary Schools
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the allocation of funds for capital projects for church aided and voluntary schools for 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend expects to be able to announce the 1990–91 allocation for capital projects for voluntary aided and special agreement schools shortly before Christmas.

  Hampshire (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will allocate additional resources to Hampshire's county education budget for the capital expenditure programme outlined in its 1989 strategic planning document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering submissions from all local education authorities, including Hampshire, covering their planned capital expenditure programmes for 1990–91. He expects to announce each authority's annual capital guidelines for that year shortly before Christmas.

  Japan (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what lessons were learnt for the research work of British universities from the recent official visit to Japan of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson).

  Mr. Jackson
  My recent visit to Japan, accompanied by the biological secretary to the Royal Society, was extremely valuable. Comparisons between the United Kingdom and Japanese systems for support of university research and for science were fascinating. My view was reinforced that British public funding of university research has sustained high quality and creative work. Our system, with autonomous universities and a Universities Funding Council separate from the Government, delivers a high quality and quantity of research. Equally interesting is the way in which Japanese business is succeeding in the development of "strategic" science and in harnessing scientific insights to the production of commercial products.

  School Visits
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools which he has visited in his official capacity since becoming Secretary of State, with dates, the purpose of each visit and whether the school is private or maintained.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I visited three LEA maintained schools in Norfolk to meet local teachers—Costessey high (19 September), Redenhall Dove first (25 September), and St. Augustine's county primary (3 November). I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the opening of the Djanogly city technology college in Nottingham on 29 September, and met teachers at Hinchingbrooke school, Huntingdon on 2 October.

  I have also had many other meetings with teachers and shall be visiting further LEA and grant-maintained schools in Manchester, Kent, Norfolk and London shortly.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table for each local education authority with a total for England of the amount of the bid made to him for capital allocation for(a) county and voluntary-controlled schools, (b) voluntary-aided schools and (c) all maintained schools for the financial year 1990–91.
  736
  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not possible to provide the information sought, since not all LEAs have yet submitted their bids.

  Teaching Posts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all the local education authorities in England showing(a) the established teaching posts and (b) the current vacancies for such posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The numbers of full-time teachers employed by each local education authority in England, together with the number of vacancies, are given in the table.

  The figures relate to January 1989, the last date for which complete information for all authorities is available.

  Full-Time Permanent Teacher Vacancies and Teachers in Post in maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools—England

  January 1989

  Number of Vacancies

  Teachers in Post

  Gateshead

  31

  1,709

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  50

  2,199

  North Tyneside

  0

  1,817

  South Tyneside

  0

  1,452

  Sunderland

  13

  2,686

  Cleveland

  12

  5,119

  Cumbria

  22

  3,846

  Durham

  15

  4,706

  Northumberland

  11

  2,494

  North

  154

  26,028

  Barnsley

  5

  1,837

  Doncaster

  22

  2,635

  Rotherham

  32

  2,274

  Sheffield

  12

  3,795

  Bradford

  28

  4,578

  Calderdale

  20

  1,689

  Kirklees

  30

  3,429

  Leeds

  61

  6,110

  Wakefield

  70

  2,643

  Humberside

  29

  7,031

  North Yorks

  46

  5,106

  York & Humberside

  355

  41,127

  Knowsley

  10

  1,543

  Liverpool

  20

  4,464

  St Helens

  9

  1,727

  Sefton

  3

  2,254

  Wirral

  19

  2,748

  Bolton

  11

  2,398

  Bury

  14

  1,406

  Manchester

  55

  3,971

  Oldham

  7

  2,076

  Rochdale

  33

  1,995

  Salford

  58

  2,086

  Stockport

  14

  2,239

  Thameside

  38

  1,811

  Trafford

  9

  1,508

  Wigan

  9

  2,869

  Cheshire

  24

  7,562

  Lancashire

  193

  10,679

  North West

  526

  53,336

  Derbyshire

  76

  7,685

  Leicestershire

  44

  7,046

  Lincolnshire

  52

  4,232

  Northamptonshire

  10

  4,668

  Nottinghamshire

  108

  8,168

  East Midlands

  290

  31,799

  Birmingham

  188

  8,615

  Coventry

  24

  2,594

  737

  Number of Vacancies

  Teachers in Post

  Dudley

  48

  2,559

  Sandwell

  25

  2,810

  Solihull

  27

  1,686

  Walsall

  4

  2,637

  Wolverhampton

  24

  2,438

  Hereford & Worcester

  50

  4,886

  Shropshire

  13

  3,214

  Staffordshire

  50

  8,044

  Warwickshire

  31

  3,677

  West Midlands

  484

  43,160

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  4,830

  Norfolk

  31

  5,218

  Suffolk

  36

  4,585

  East Anglia

  106

  14,633

  Barking

  51

  1,264

  Barnet

  85

  2,197

  Bexley

  31

  1,610

  Brent

  32

  2,011

  Bromley

  10

  1,805

  Croydon

  39

  2,290

  Ealing

  116

  2,119

  Enfield

  72

  2,001

  Haringey

  128

  1,509

  Harrow

  16

  1,321

  Havering

  51

  1,885

  Hillingdon

  58

  1,665

  Hounslow

  24

  1,639

  Kingston

  9

  966

  Merton

  47

  1,159

  Newham

  194

  2,365

  Redbridge

  36

  1,558

  Richmond

  1

  872

  Sutton

  21

  1,110

  Waltham Forest

  75

  1,790

  Ilea

  1,028

  15,703

  S E Greater London

  2,124

  48,839

  Bedfordshire

  117

  4,247

  Berkshire

  91

  5,231

  Buckinghamshire

  73

  4,531

  East Sussex

  74

  3,907

  Essex

  123

  10,969

  Hampshire

  134

  10,569

  Hertfordshire

  109

  7,664

  Isle of Wight

  0

  890

  Kent

  224

  10,840

  Oxfordshire

  9

  3,565

  Surrey

  131

  6,001

  West Sussex

  74

  4,476

  Other South East

  1,159

  72,890

  Avon

  21

  6,405

  Cornwall

  47

  3,464

  Devon

  122

  6,429

  Dorset

  11

  4,182

  Gloucestershire

  0

  3,797

  Somerset

  73

  3,095

  Wiltshire

  68

  4,017

  South West

  342

  31,389

  Total England

  5,540

  363,201

  GCSE changes
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the necessary changes to be made to GCSE in order to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The future development of the GCSE examination was the subject to a report from the School Examinations and Assessment Council sent to my right 738
  hon. Friend on 13 July. Copies of the report, together with my right hon. Friend's reply, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Long-serving Teachers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment his Department has made of the availability of special allowances to long-serving teachers in small special needs schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions has been asked to advise on what further increase should be made in the number of incentive allowances, and in their value relative to the main professional grade. All teachers in special schools, other than heads and deputies, receive at least a B incentive allowance. The Department's present plans assume that the proportion of special schools teachers receiving higher value allowances will progressively increase until 1990.

  Supply Teachers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage an increase in the number of supply teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our education support grant programme to assist teacher recruitment urges local education authorities to encourage flexible working practices, including part-time working. This should stimulate the employment of supply teachers. However, the employment and deployment of teachers is a matter for local education authorities and schools. It is for them to decide how many supply teachers to appoint. They also have discretion to pay teacher on short-notice contracts at rates they consider appropriate in order to recruit and retain the teachers they need.

SCOTLAND

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) deliberate release of fish from fish farms and (b) accidental escape of fish from fish farms on the habits and genetic coding of North Atlantic salmon.

  Mr. Lang
  A study of "genetic protein variation in farmed Atlantic salmon in Scotland: comparison of farmed strains with their wild source of populations" was published in August in "Scottish Fisheries Research Report No. 42". Further studies on both wild and farmed populations of salmon have been completed or are in progress.

  At this stage it is too early to predict what scientific conclusions might emerge. The recently published work does show that there are genetic differences between farmed strains of salmon and the wild populations from which they are drawn. The genetic consequences of interaction between farmed fish and a wild stock are unknown but are thought likely to be complex. So far there is no direct evidence of adverse effects of actual damage to any wild stocks in Scotland.

  A Report "The Genetic Impact of Farmed Atlantic Salmon on Wild Populations" was published by the

  739
  Nature Conservancy Council in August. This made a number of recommendations about further research and about mangement of wild and farmed stocks of salmon. We support the view that further studies are required and that great care is needed to ensure that deliberate restocking of rivers is carried out in the right way and that releases of farmed fish are prevented or reduced as far as possible.

  Land Acidity
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence his Department has about deterioration in terms of acidity of Scottish agricultural land over the past 10 years; and whether he will re-introduce a lime subsidy for Scottish agriculture.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The farming industry is well aware that regular liming is an essential and cost-effective element of land husbandry and I understand that lime usage is currently at about the same level as it was when a general lime subsidy was available. We have no plans to reintroduce a lime subsidy, but grant assistance is available for the application of lime for certain grassland improvement operations under the farm and conservation grant scheme (EC).

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of oilseed rape were harvested in 1989; what tonnage was produced; what was the value of the crop; and what subsidy was paid from public funds for its production or processing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Latest estimates show that in 1989 some 36,000 hectares of oilseed rape were harvested in Scotland producing some 122,600 tonnes. The value of the 1989 crop in the United Kingdom as a whole is still being assessed. An estimate of the value will be included in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" due to be published early in 1990. Production aid for oilseed rape under the EC oilseeds scheme is being paid on the 1989 crop; final estimates of the total amount will not be known until at least the end of the 1989–90 marketing year.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the presence of pollen and other airborne material derived from flowering crops of oilseed rape giving the concentration in the atmosphere above the crop and the maximum extent of detectable contamination; and if he will give comparable information for other agricultural crops.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no information on concentrations of airborne material from oilseed rape in the atmosphere above the crop nor comparable information on other crops. I am aware that some experiments have been carried out by individuals to detect the presence of oilseed rape pollen in the atmosphere in the vicinity of crops.

  Legal Profession
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to introduce a separate Scottish Bill dealing with proposed reforms to the legal profession; and if he will make a statement.
  740
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering what legislative provision may be necessary to implement the conclusions to his review of the legal profession which were set out in "The Scottish Legal Profession—The Way Forward" which he issued on 10 October.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress in site evaluation in terms of geology, transportation routes and effects on local economies, of prospective sites for the disposal of(a) low level, (b) intermediate level and (c) high level radioactive wastes in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In relation to low and intermediate-level wastes it is for the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive (Nirex) to evaluate these factors in relation to sites in the United Kingdom which it wishes to investigate. As regards possible geological investigations at Dounreay, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 6 November, at column 495. If Nirex were subsequently to propose the construction of a repository it would be required to present a full safety case and environmental impact assessment, and a public inquiry would he held.

  It is Government policy to store high-level radioactive wastes at the sites where they arise for at least 50 years. No current site evaluation is taking place for the disposal of this category of waste.

  Health Service (Contracts)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to Lothian health board about awarding Health Service catering contracts to outside contractors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None in relation to any specific contract.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards sending in auditors to examine the workings of health boards which have awarded in-house contracts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As with any area of health board expenditure, the procedures governing the award of contracts may be the subject of examination at any time by the statutory auditor.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report, by district council area, the average time taken by each district council in processing applications by sitting tenants for purchasing their council houses; and if he will also list for each district council their total housing stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  741

  Average processing time for houses sold in the quarter ended 30 June 1989 and Local Authority stock at 31 March 1989

  Average processing time (months)

  Stock at 31 March 1989

  Local authorities

  9·6

  797,315

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  6·0

  2,379

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  7·4

  3,956

  Roxburgh

  6·0

  5,179

  Tweeddale1

  9·8

  1,479

  Central

  Clackmannan

  7·0

  8,442

  Falkirk

  7·6

  28,787

  Stirling1

  9·2

  11,825

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  8·9

  4,718

  Nithsdale

  6·8

  7,074

  Stewartry

  5·1

  2,263

  Wigtown

  7·9

  4,216

  Fife

  Dunfermline2

  7·8

  18,793

  Kirkcaldy

  9·3

  22,767

  North East Fife

  9·3

  6,522

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  10·8

  37,088

  Banff and Buchan2

  9·3

  11,370

  Gordon

  8·5

  5,432

  Kincardine and Deeside

  7·1

  3,547

  Moray

  6·1

  9,881

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  5·3

  1,028

  Caithness

  5·2

  3,746

  Inverness

  9·0

  6,357

  Lochaber

  7·7

  2,844

  Nairn

  5·0

  1,051

  Ross and Cromarty

  5·0

  6,034

  Skye and Lochalsh

  7·0

  775

  Sutherland

  11·0

  1,725

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  8·3

  13,649

  Edinburgh

  11·8

  45,931

  Midlothian

  9·9

  10,516

  West Lothian

  10·9

  19,636

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  12·1

  7,840

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  11·5

  1,714

  Clydebank

  11·0

  10,787

  Clydesdale

  10·3

  8,890

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  10·1

  3,907

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  8·9

  9,263

  Cunninghame2

  9·2

  20,876

  Dumbarton

  11·3

  11,621

  East Kilbride

  6·7

  1,268

  Eastwood

  8·4

  1,728

  Glasgow

  12·7

  161,019

  Hamilton

  7·0

  21,041

  Inverclyde2

  9·6

  17,832

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  9·0

  15,687

  Kyle and Carrick1

  9·0

  16,011

  Monklands2

  10·4

  26,741

  Motherwell2

  9·0

  36,511

  Renfrew

  9·7

  35,000

  Strathkelvin

  6·1

  9,224

  Tayside

  Angus

  6·7

  12,490

  Dundee

  13·3

  36,845

  Perth and Kinross

  9·2

  14,073

  Orkney Islands1

  5·6

  1,406

  742

  Average processing time (months)

  Stock at 31 March 1989

  Shetland Islands

  10·8

  2,601

  Western Isles1

  7·6

  2,411

  1Latest stock figure available 30 September 1988.

  2 Average processing time for quarter 1 1989.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, which local authorities will benefit from the Bellwin scheme invoked after the severe storms in February of the current year; and by how much.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The claims have now been assessed and I can announce that a quarter of a million pounds in grant will be made available for those authorities which, in terms of the scheme of special financial assistance which I announced on 27 April, suffered an undue financial burden in responding to the storms and floods of February.

  The details of the grant are:

  £

  Highland Regional Council

  207,975

  Inverness District Council

  29,250

  Western Isles Islands Council

  14,058

  251,283

  Subject to parliamentary approval of a supplementary estimate which will be presented shortly payments will be issued to those authorities as soon as possible.

  Roads
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number and location of proposed improvements to the A96 which require SDD funding.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: The following programme of improvements on the A96, to be funded by the Scottish Development Department, has been developed in line with the strategic six-point plan for the route which I announced last December:—

  1. Major Schemes (over £1 million)

  There are 7 major schemes programmed.

  Bucksburn Diversion

  Blackburn Bypass

  Kintore Bypass

  Inveramsey-Waterside

  Keith Bypass

  Lhanbryde Bypass

  Nairn Railway Bridge

  In addition, the Scottish Development Department is considering the justification and possible options for bypassing Fochabers. If a satisfactory scheme can be worked out it will be added to the trunk road programme.

  2. Minor Schemes (less than £1 million)

  Three improvement schemes are planned to start this financial year. These are the Dramlachs climbing lane at Fochabers, the Tearie junction at Brodie and the Drumine to Gollanfield scheme. In addition, a report has been commissioned from Grampian regional council which is expected to identify at least another 5 minor schemes for early implementation which will provide overtaking opportunities along the route. In parallel with this, a specialist consultant

  743
  has been appointed to develop a computer based simulation model for the whole of the A96 to assist in the identification of the optimum locations for further overtaking opportunity schemes.

  Accident Remedial Schemes

  Good progress has already been made on accident remedial schemes on the A96, and Grampian and Highland regional councils will in the near future be recommending a further programme of schemes for the next financial year. These schemes will be implemented quickly in line with departmental policy.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number and location of SDD funded improvements which are currently being undertaken on the A96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: One major scheme, the Inverurie bypass, is currently under construction. In addition, seven accident remedial schemes involving measures such as signing and surface dressing are under way or recently completed at a number of locations along the route. This work has also included a thorough overhaul of all road markings on the route with highly reflective, long-lasting materials to the most recent specification.

EMPLOYMENT

  Agricultural Equipment (Safety)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives to improve safety of agricultural equipment are currently being funded by his Department.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission are currently funding seven research projects in the area of safety of agricultural equipment:—

  (1) Seat belts in agricultural tractors;

  (2) Interlocking devices for component guards on agricultural machinery;

  (3) Tractor driven equipment—noise test procedures;

  (4) Practical application of noise reduction methods in agriculture;

  (5) Power take-off shafts—alternative power supply systems;

  (6) Integrity of safety cabs fitted to tractors;

  (7) Dynamic and static test methods for tractor mechanical coupling components.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra factory inspectors will be employed in January 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A recent recruitment campaign has resulted in 27 extra inspectors being appointed since August. The increase will be partly offset by January by retirements and resignations. A further campaign is now under way to ensure that the figure planned in the Health and Safety Commission's plan for 1 April next is met; the inspectorate will continue to grow thereafter.

  Health and Safety at Work
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take on the issue of the level of fines for health and safety at work offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following representations from the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and the 744
  director general of the Health and Safety Executive about the low level of fines for health and safety offences, my right hon. Friend is considering them in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Noise at Work
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he has made to monitor the effectiveness of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors appointed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 will enforce the regulations as they do other regulations made under the Act. In addition inspectors will be carrying out a special programme of visits during 1991 and 1992 to obtain information on the extent to which employers and employees together with the makers and suppliers of machinery understand and meet their obligations under the regulations.

  Council for Social Aid, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide(a) details of the destinations of all the employment training trainees who were on the Council for Social Aid scheme in Greater Manchester at the time of the scheme's closure in May of the current year and (b) give the numbers of those who were unable, or refused to join another scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table lists the latest known destinations of the trainees who were on the Council for Social Aid's scheme at the time of the closure.

  Number

  Transferred to other Training Managers

  818

  Known to have found permanent employment through Employment Training

  23

  Not known

  170

  All trainees were offered a place with another training manager.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the additional cost incurred by the Training Agency to date as a result of the closure of the Council for Social Aid's employment training scheme in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Additional costs of £12,270 have been incurred in payment of start fees to the training managers who took over the training of Council for Social Aid's former trainees.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the present employment of the staff formerly employed on the Council for Social Aid scheme in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no information on the present employed/unemployed status of the former employees of the Council for Social Aid.

  Employment Training, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the most recent details of the ethnic origin, sex and disability of employment training trainees for each scheme in the Greater Manchester area.
  745
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary stationed at Kells Royal Ulster Constabulary station during the period 1 June 1988 to 1 March 1989 were transferred to other duties in other parts of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  The Chief Constable has informed me that three members of the RUC serving at Kells RUC station were transferred during the period in question.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who were stationed at Kells Royal Ulster Constabulary station from 1 January 1988 and 1 March 1989 resigned from the police service during that period or subsequent to it.

  Mr. Cope
  The Chief Constable has informed me that two members of the RUC serving at Kells RUC station have resigned from the force since 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary authorised and carried out a search for arms and ammunition at Kells Royal Ulster Constabulary station during the period 1 January 1988 to 1 March 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  The Chief Constable has informed me that a search of the RUC station at Kells was carried out on 12 October 1988. No unauthorised firearms or ammunition were discovered.

  Nurses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by health district(a) the current nursing staff establishment, (b) the number in post at the latest available date and (c) the number who had left the National Health Service in the preceeding year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The information requested in respect of the current nursing staff establishment and the number in post at the latest available date is as follows:—

  Nursing staff1—current funded establishment at March 1989

  Number

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  9,330·20

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  2,680·79

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  2,443·92

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  2,799·44

  Northern Ireland Total

  17,254·35

  1 'Nursing staff' includes staff employed in the personal social services.

  746

  Nursing staff1 in post at March 1989

  Number

  Whole time equivalent

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  11,013

  9,368·71

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  3,179

  2,786·49

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  3,246

  2,781·18

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  3,053

  2,856·21

  Northern Ireland Total

  20,491

  17,792·59

  1 'Nursing staff' includes staff employed in the personal social services.

  The number of nursing staff who have left the Health Service is not known.

  EC Border Area Programme
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount received by each Northern Ireland Government Department, from the European Community's border areas programme, in each of the years since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The total amounts received by Northern Ireland Government Departments and Government-sponsored agencies from the Europen Community's border areas programme since 1980 are as follows:

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Department of the Environment

  600,000

  —

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  450,053

  75,569

  Further payments will fall due to these bodies as the programme progresses. Resources available from the start of the programme in 1980 were used in the early years to finance district council schemes.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list all those projects and initiatives in Northern Ireland which have received financial aid from the European Community's border areas programme.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: A total of 99 tourism and communications projects have been approved for financial support from the European regional development fund under the border areas programme. A number of initiatives benefiting small and medium-sized companies have also received financial aid from the programme.

  I will write to the hon. Gentleman enclosing a full list of projects and initiatives assisted under the programme.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the entire stock of advance and refurbished factories for new investment, held by the Industrial Development Board, giving details by district council areas.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The information is as follows:
  747

  District council

  Advance and refurbished factories now available

  Vacant factories not refurbished

  Factories awaiting surrender

  Under construction

  Antrim

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Ards

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Armagh

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Belfast

  —

  4

  —

  1

  Carrickfergus

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Coleraine

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Derry

  1

  3

  —

  1

  Down

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Omagh

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  6

  2

  —

  Police
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to ensure further effective development of the policy of ensuring that there should be a police presence in operations which involve direct contact between the armed forces and the community; and whether additional police are being recruited for this purpose.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: As agreed between the British and Irish Governments at the last Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meeting on 18 October 1989 a working group has been established on the subject. The results of this work will be considered when they are available.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those parcels of land held by the Department of Economic Development, LEDU or the Industrial Development Board and zoned for industrial development by the planning authorities, giving details by district council area.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: The IDB's land holdings for future industrial development are as follows. Neither the DOE nor LEDU owns land for industrial development purposes.

  Industrial zoned land available for letting

  District Council

  (Acres)

  Antrim

  84

  Ards

  22

  Armagh

  9

  Balleymena

  79

  Ballymoney

  nil

  Banbridge

  3

  Belfast

  50·3

  Carrickfergus

  23

  Castlereagh

  2

  Coleraine

  75·3

  Cookstown

  10

  Craigavon

  206·5

  Derry

  218

  Down

  43·8

  Dungannon

  22·1

  Fermanagh

  24·4

  Larne

  29·8

  Limavady

  17

  Lisburn

  183·5

  748

  District Council

  (Acres)

  Magherafelt

  5·5

  Moyle

  1·1

  Newry and Mourne

  56·6

  Newtownabbey

  262·5

  North Down

  68

  Omagh

  14·5

  Strabane

  9

  Funding (North Down and Ards)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the level of funding for the home help service in the North Down and Ards unit of management of the Eastern health and social services boards in each of the past three years; how many persons received the assistance of home helps in each of these years; and if he will make a statement on the future development of the home help service within the North Down and Ards unit of management.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Expenditure £

  Recipients

  1986–87

  962,744

  1,354

  1987–88

  1,187,434

  1,378

  1988–89

  1,255,714

  1,320

  Responsibility for the management and delivery of the home help service in the North Down and Ards unit of management is primarily a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. The initial allocation of funds to health and social services boards in Northern Ireland in 1989–90 amounted to £696 million. This provides for an 8–4 per cent. increase over 1988–89 and affords boards the scope to increase expenditure on the provision of particular services, including the home help service, in the light of their view of priorities.

HEALTH

  District Medical Officers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current notional national complement of district medical officers; how many are currently in post; and what steps he is taking to increase levels of recruitment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We accepted the recommendations of the report "Public Health in England" (published December 1988) that each health authority should designate a director of public health (formerly district medical officers). Regional health authorities are to submit manpower plans to meet the report's recommendations by December 1989.

  As at 30 September 1988 there were 136 district medical officers in post and 18 vacancies.

  We have funded 40 additional training posts to aid future recruitment to the specialty.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now support an out of court compensation scheme to alleviate the physical and financial distress of families of haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS through National Health Service treatment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have already provided an ex gratia payment of £10 million to set up the Macfarlane Trust to meet the special needs of haemophiliacs infected with HIV and their dependants. Claims for compensation are now being pursued through the courts and I am advised these matters are sub judice.

  Hospices
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to introduce financial support for hospices similar to the pound-for-pound scheme introduced by the Scottish Office.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Arrangements for financial support for hospices in England have been under careful consideration for some time. It is hoped to bring forward plans in due course.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be giving the budget figures for hospitals wishing to opt out.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will remain an integral part of the NHS. In common with other NHS units, they will derive the majority of their revenue income from contracts with health authorities and GP practice budget holders to provide services for NHS patients. In addition they will be able to borrow money both from the Government and private sector, subject to an external financing limit which will be set for each trust and reviewed annually. Each trust will be expected to frame its budget so as to remain within its external financing limit.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total sum spent in securing the implementation of the health services Bill to date; and what is his estimate of the sum which will be spent for this purpose before this measure is enacted.
  750
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government announced on 11 May 1989 that £82 million has been allocated in 1989–90 for implementing the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients". By no means all of the proposals will require legislation, but for those that do we shall seek a Bill at the earliest opportunity. Future levels of support will be announced shortly.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the number of outbreaks of food poisoning, connected with salmonella for each month of the current year to date, (b) the corresponding figures for 1988 and (c) the source of the information.

  Mr. Freeman
  There were 712 outbreaks of salmonellosis in humans reported in England and Wales in the period January to September 1989. The corresponding figure for 1988 was 332. Figures are not routinely collated on a monthly basis. The dates are based on formal reports to the communicable disease surveillance centre by public health laboratory service and other laboratories and by local authorities, and were published on 30 October in the "Update on salmonella infection" produced jointly by the public health laboratory service and the state veterinary service.

  Artificial Insemination
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of those women who received artificial insemination by donor in the latest year for which figures are available were(a) married, (b) unmarried, (c) fertile and (d) infertile.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that artificial insemination by donor is available only as a treatment for married, infertile women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation" explains that it is Government policy to introduce legislation in this Parliament to license the provision of specified infertility services including those provided through artificial insemination by donor (AID). The statutory licensing authority's licensing structure and code of practice will cover arrangements for counselling, assessment and screening; these will need to take into account the position of the donor, the recipient, the individual clinician and the interests of the child or children who may result from AID.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the numbers of women who have received artificial insemination by donor in each year for which figures are available from each of the clinics which currently provide such a service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Polkinghorne Report
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the letter with which he circulated copies of the Polkinghorne report to health authorities made it clear that the contents of the report and its recommended code of practice had no statutory authority;

  (2) why he decided to circulate to health authorities copies of the Polkinghorne report before the House had fully debated its conclusions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 23 October 1989 at column 315. Health circular (89) 23, issued in July 1989, informed health authorities of the Government's acceptance of the Polkinghorne committee's main recommendations and asked authorities to ensure that the new Polkinghorne code of practice on the use of foetuses and foetal material in research and treatment is adhered to.

  Medical Research
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to require medical research in non-National Health Service establishments to be supervised by medical ethical committees.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to introduce legislation. The general principles governing research in human subjects are contained in the declaration of Helsinki. The General Medical Council, whose powers derive from the medical Acts, is responsible for enforcing professional standards.

  Tobacco (Marketing)
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to sign the voluntary agreement between Her Majesty's Government and United States Tobacco International on the marketing of oral tobacco in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been seeking to conclude a revised voluntary agreement with United States Tobacco International, without prejudice to my decision on whether to ban oral snuff, for some considerable time. On 6 October I wrote to Jack Africk the President of United States Tobacco, enclosing a copy of a new agreement which I had signed, for his signature. So far I have received no reply.

  Leeds General Infirmary
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will call for a report from the chairman of Leeds Western health authority on the proposal for Leeds general infirmary to opt out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The decision on whether or not to prepare a formal application for NHS trust status is a matter for the sponsors of the expression of interest in the unit concerned. There is no question of any hospital "opting-out" of the NHS.

  Measles Vaccination
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department is taking any measures to examine what limitations of the vaccine used against measles there may be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department continues to monitor adverse events and reactions to all vaccines using the yellow card reporting system. The incidence of measles is also monitored and it is a notifiable disease.

  The Medical Research Council continues its long-term (25-year) study of 10,000 recipients of measles vaccine.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there are any proposals to modify immunisation strategies for the measles virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no current plans to modify the present measles immunisation strategy. This strategy aims to continue to improve the uptake of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to achieve the elimination of measles as an indigenous disease by the year 2000, in accordance with the World Health Organisation's objective for its European region.

  Uptake of measles-only vaccine in England in 1987–88 reached 76 per cent. and the incidence of measles in the first three quarters of 1989 is lower than that in any comparable previous period.

  Ambulance Service (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average pay increase for ambulance men in each year since 1978–79.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Increases were as follows:

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  123·0

  113·0

  1980–81

  7·3

  1981–82

  6·0

  1982–83

  4·5

  1983–84

  4·5

  1984–85

  210·0

  1985–86

  6·0

  1986–87

  5·0

  1987–88

  35·4

  1988–89

  46·5

  1 Staged Clegg award paid 1 August 1979 and 1 April 1980.

  2 Introduction of new salaried structure—average increases more than 10 per cent.

  3 In addition the standard working week was reduced by one hour.

  4 Current offer from 1 April 1989—additional 2·8 per cent, for qualified staff in the London ambulance service.

  Cervical Cytology
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the median, (b) the longest and (c) the shortest time in each district health authority between a woman having a cervical smear for screening and when she is notified of the results.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) regional health authority and (b) area health authority, the number of cervical cytology screening call-recall systems in operation; and what is the average waiting time for processing of cervical smears in each category.
  753
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: All 190 district health authorities in England introduced computerised call and recall system for cervical cancer screening by April 1988. Information on laboratory processing times is not available in the form requested. In September over 75 per cent. of districts were achieving the Department's target for laboratories of returning results of smear tests to the doctor who took them within one month. We do not collect figures on processing times in these districts. The average processing time of districts failing to meet the one month target is 6·5 weeks.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Weapons
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for the illegal carrying of knives since this section of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was implemented.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which relates to the possession of knives in public places came into force on 29 September 1988. In 1988 in England and Wales, 150 persons were prosecuted for the offence of which 130 were found guilty.

  Drugs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the recent allocation of Government funds for an anti-crack campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received a number of representations about the drug prevention initiative which was announced on 11 October. These representations will be taken into account in developing our plans for a central drug prevention unit and the initial nine local drug prevention teams to be located in areas where the misuse of drugs, particularly of cocaine and crack, presents a serious problem.

  Joy Riding
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of fatalities involved with joy riding and on the measures he recommends local police forces to take when giving chase to those who steal cars.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The police service faces a genuine dilemma between the apprehension of offenders and the safety of the public. On many occasions when a driver fails to stop, the police do not know whether they are dealing with a joy rider or a more serious crime. The police manual "Roadcraft", which is used as the basis for police driver training, states that no emergency is so urgent as to justify an accident. This is emphasised in the more detailed guidance which chief officers give members of their forces.

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provisions he proposes to include in the proposed Broadcasting Bill to ensure that the Broadcasting Standards Council or the Independent 754
  Television Commission have adequate powers to enforce representation of deaf people and to monitor and enforce standards for hard of hearing and deaf people;

  (2) what provisions he will include in his proposed Broadcasting Bill to ensure access to television viewing for deaf viewers through subtitling or sign language and for the monitoring of sound quality.

  Mr. Mellor
  The arrangements we propose in relation to subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing were set out in a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) on 26 July. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) will be empowered to require Channel 3 and 5 licensees and Channel 4 to provide services of a high technical standard, including high sound quality.

  The ITC will act as a licensing and regulatory body. Its members will be chosen on the basis of their experience and knowledge but will not represent specific interest groups. The Broadcasting Standards Council was set up to deal with matters of taste and decency on television and radio. Since these issues affect all viewers and listeners, it would not be appropriate to appoint a member solely concerned with the needs of people who are deaf.

  Magistrates Clerks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the magistrates courts in England and Wales showing(a) the established posts for clerks and (b) the number of vacancies for the posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Manpower returns received from 88 of the 105 magistrates courts committees in England and Wales indicated that there were 149 vacancies for court clerks out of an establishment of 1,249 at 30 June 1989 the latest date for which information is available, as shown in the table.

  Full-time staff only

  Magistrates courts committee

  Authorised complement

  Staff in post

  +/-

  Avon

  22

  19

  -3

  Barking

  6

  3

  -3

  Barnet

  7

  6

  -1

  Barnsley

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bedfordshire

  21

  17

  -4

  Berkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bexley

  6

  5

  -1

  Birmingham

  36

  36

  0

  Bolton

  8

  8

  0

  Bradford

  16

  16

  0

  Brent

  9

  7

  -2

  Bromley

  7

  7

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  10

  0

  Bury

  6

  6

  0

  Calderdale

  8

  8

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  5

  -2

  Cheshire

  27

  25

  -2

  Cleveland

  19

  19

  0

  Cornwall

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Coventry

  11

  10

  -1

  Croydon

  11

  11

  0

  Cumbria

  9

  8

  -1

  Derbyshire

  24

  16

  -8

  Devon

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Doncaster

  11

  8

  -3

  Dorset

  16

  16

  0

  Dudley

  9

  9

  0

  Durham

  10

  9

  -1

  755

  Full-time staff only

  Magistrates courts committee

  Authorised complement

  Staff in post

  +/-

  Ealing

  11

  10

  -1

  East Sussex

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Enfield

  5

  5

  0

  Essex

  27

  24

  -3

  Gateshead

  6

  6

  0

  Gloucestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire

  41

  40

  -1

  Haringey

  9

  7

  -2

  Harrow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Havering

  6

  6

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  19

  17

  -2

  Hertfordshire

  22

  17

  -5

  Hillingdon

  8

  8

  0

  Hounslow

  14

  12

  -2

  Humberside

  23

  22

  -1

  Isle of Wight

  3

  2

  -1

  Kent

  46

  32

  -14

  Kingston

  3

  3

  0

  Kirklees

  12

  11

  -1

  Knowsley

  6

  5

  -1

  Lancashire

  43

  39

  -4

  Leeds

  31

  31

  0

  Leicestershire

  15

  11

  -4

  Lincolnshire

  10

  9

  -1

  Liverpool

  22

  17

  -5

  London (City of)

  5

  5

  0

  London (inner)1

  36

  29

  -7

  Manchester

  26

  23

  -3

  Merton

  8

  7

  -1

  Newcastle

  11

  11

  0

  Newham

  10

  10

  0

  Norfolk

  19

  14

  -5

  North Tyneside

  3

  1

  -2

  North Yorkshire

  16

  15

  -1

  Northamptonshire

  17

  16

  -1

  Northumberland

  n/a

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  39

  31

  -8

  Oldham

  9

  8

  -1

  Oxfordshire

  n/a

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  n/a

  —

  —

  Richmond

  6

  6

  0

  Rochdale

  10

  9

  -1

  Rotherham

  7

  7

  0

  Salford

  10

  10

  0

  Sandwell

  n/a

  —

  —

  Sefton

  n/a

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  16

  16

  0

  Shropshire

  5

  5

  0

  Solihull

  6

  5

  -1

  Somerset

  11

  8

  -3

  South Tyneside

  6

  5

  -1

  St. Helens

  n/a

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  25

  21

  -4

  Stockport

  14

  12

  -2

  Suffolk

  n/a

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  9

  8

  -1

  Surrey

  27

  25

  -2

  Sutton

  n/a

  —

  —

  Tameside

  8

  9

  1

  Trafford

  7

  6

  -1

  Wakefield

  13

  12

  -1

  Walsall

  9

  9

  0

  Waltham Forest

  7

  6

  -1

  Warwickshire

  23

  11

  -12

  West Sussex

  28

  27

  -1

  Wigan

  11

  10

  -1

  Wiltshire

  11

  10

  -1

  Wirral

  n/a

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  7

  4

  -3

  Clwyd

  11

  9

  -2

  Dyfed

  11

  8

  -3

  Gwent

  10

  10

  0

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  17

  17

  0

  Powys

  1

  1

  0

  South Glamorgan

  14

  14

  0

  756

  Full-time staff only

  Magistrates courts committee

  Authorised complement

  Staff in post

  +/-

  West Glamorgan

  12

  12

  0

  Total

  1,249

  1,100

  -149

  1 Comparable grade

  The staff in post figure includes trainees occupying court clerk posts, but information on their number is not readily available.

  The problems of recruitment and retention of court clerks, especially those qualified as solicitors or barristers, were addressed in the pay settlement for magistrates courts staff which I have recently approved for grant purposes.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by open prison(a) the percentage of inmates convicted of sexual offences and serving life sentences and (b) the number of inmates who have absconded during the last 12 months; and if he will show, in his answer, which of these figures concern female inmates.

  Mr. Mellor
  According to the information held centrally, which is approximate, there were seven males on 30 June 1989 serving life sentences for sexual offences in open prisons in England and Wales. All were held at Leyhill accounting for 2 per cent. of its population. Information on absconds from open prisons is given in the table.

  Absconds from open prisons in England and Wales: by establishment, October 1988 to September 1989

  Establishment

  Absconds2

  Male open prisons

  Ford

  65

  Highpoint

  3

  Kirkham

  125

  Leyhill

  26

  Morton Hall

  27

  North Sea Camp

  28

  Rudgate

  117

  Spring Hill

  26

  Standford Hill

  71

  Sudbury1

  68

  All male open prisons

  556

  Female open prisons

  Askham Grange

  8

  Drake Hall

  49

  East Sutton Park

  14

  All female open prisons

  71

  1 Includes Foston Hall

  2 During October 1988 to September 1989

  Burglary (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent figures for burglary in South Yorkshire; and what is the national figure.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest information relates to the 12 months to the end of June 1989; for England and Wales the information is published in table 4 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 29/89 and for South Yorkshire in a separate table, copies of both are available in the Library.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from overseas students seeking extensions to their leave to remain in the United Kingdom were outstanding at the latest convenient date; and what was the comparable figure for each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimated number of student applications outstanding in July this year was 14,000. Comparable figures for the previous five years are not available.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances overseas students are currently being granted extensions to their leave to remain in the United Kingdom despite their applications being submitted out of time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Any application from an overseas student who has overstayed his or her last leave to remain is considered on its individual merits, taking account, for example, of the time since leave expired and the reasons for overstaying.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what relaxations in immigration procedures have recently been introduced to reduce the backlog of applications from overseas students seeking extensions to their leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An exercise was mounted recently to clear applications from students where most of the period of leave applied for had already passed. It did not involve any relaxation of the immigration rules. In addition improved working procedures have been introduced to reduce the time taken to process after-entry cases, including applications from overseas students.

  Community Issues (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations or reports from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire concerning the Divali celebrations in Leicestershire on 29 and 30 October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire, Mr. Michael Hirst, as to the criteria he applies in deciding whether to meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss community issues.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. This is a matter for the chief constable to decide in the exercise of his responsibilities. We fully support the chief constable's continuing efforts to ensure good relations between the police and all sections of the community in Leicestershire.

  Police and Fire Services (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average pay increase for(a) firemen and (b) police in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows:758

  1. Fire Service (5th year qualified firefighter)

  Per cent.

  1978

  22·15

  1979

  20·45

  1980

  18·8

  1981

  10·1

  1982

  7·5

  1983

  7·8

  1984

  7·2

  1985

  7·2

  1986

  7·3

  1987

  7·3

  1988

  8·6

  1989

  8·6

  2. Police (officers below the rank of superintendent)

  Per cent.

  1978

  13·9

  1979

  13·5

  1980

  21·3

  1981

  13·2

  1982

  10·3

  1983

  8·4

  1984

  5·13

  1985

  7·5

  1986

  7·5

  1987

  7·75

  1988

  8·5

  1989

  9·25

  1 Implemented in two phases.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently at Heathrow airport; and how many are in accommodation provided by the immigration service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information centrally available relates to passengers who are detained under the Immigration Act 1971 having claimed asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom, and in respect of whom an asylum questionnaire has been completed. On 8 November the number in detention was 21. The immigration service does not provide accommodation for passengers given temporary admission although hotel accommodation is occasionally arranged in cases of exceptional need.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are made available at major ports of entry for asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Asylum seekers without means of support in the United Kingdom will, if they meet the relevant criteria, qualify for social security benefits and emergency housing. In addition a number of voluntary organisations assist asylum seekers.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the plight of asylum seekers at ports of entry into the United Kingdom; and what resources are provided by his Department to voluntary organisations providing assistance for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A number of organisations concerned with the welfare of refugees and asylum seekers have made representations concerning the need for better reception facilities for asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry
  759
  and who have no means of support in the United Kingdom. An element of the Home Office grant to the British Refugee Council goes to assist asylum seekers arriving at Gatwick airport. We have agreed in principle to grant being made available to strengthen the reception arrangements which are made by the voluntary sector, and officials are in discussion with the refugee agencies about specific proposals.

  Probation and Magistrates Services
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to cash limit the specific grants to the probation and magistrates courts services.

  Mr. Waddington
  Under the new capital finance system for local authority services, capital grant for probation and magistrates courts will be cash limited from April 1990. Following our consultations with the local authority associations and relevant service organisations about the specific grants payable in respect of these services, I propose to introduce cash limits on their current grants. I shall he seeking a suitable opportunity for the necessary legislative provision with a view to implementing the new arrangements in April 1992. We shall be discussing further with the relevant bodies possible mechanisms for the allocation of cash-limited grant.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the income and expenditure account for the administration of citizenship applications for 1988–89.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the nationality fees income and expenditure account for the 12 months ended 31 March 1989.

  Experimental Reparation Schemes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the research report on experimental reparation schemes which was submitted to his Department in April 1988 and which according to the Green Paper, "Punishment, Custody and the Community" was to be published by the end of 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: Assessment of the four experimental reparation schemes is part of a wider study of reparation and mediation. Some results have been published but the main report has taken longer to prepare for publication than we expected. We hope to publish it in the next few months.

  Drugs
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women and from which country of origin, are currently serving prison sentences for attempting to bring drugs into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The latest readily available information is given in the table. The recording of nationality for citizens of Commonwealth countries, Pakistan and the Irish Republic is not always reliable.
  760

  Population of females sentenced for all drugs offences in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1989: by nationality

  Nationality (name of country)

  Number1

  Colombia

  14

  Ghana

  15

  Guyana

  5

  India

  6

  Jamaica

  16

  Nigeria

  76

  United States of America

  6

  United Kingdom

  150

  Other nationalities2

  25

  Not recorded

  10

  All nationalities

  323

  1 Provisional. The figures are those recorded centrally which are approximate: detailed checking would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Nationalities with less than five persons recorded.

ENERGY

  Coal Supplies
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will examine the prices of imported coal within the Community to establish any variations which may exist or be developing.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department receives regular information on the price of imported coal in European Community countries. The average price of coal imports into the United Kingdom is currently higher than that of imports into other Community countries as a high proportion of United Kingdom imports are of premium quality coking rather than steam coal. In addition, United Kingdom imports of steam coal usually have to be transshipped from deep water ports on the Continent and this adds to their cost.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in planning the future arrangements to secure British energy supplies, he has taken into account the likelihood of changes in the value of sterling.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government seek to ensure that the United Kingdom has adequate, diverse and secure supplies of energy in the forms that people want at the lowest realistic prices. We aim to achieve this wherever possible by ensuring that energy prices reflect their true economic costs and by subjecting as much of energy supply to market forces as is feasible. We believe that this approach provides the flexibility to bring about any necessary adjustment of the energy economy in response to outside influences, of which the value of sterling would be one.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what advice he has given to the electricity industry in regard to any development of dependency upon imported coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None. Coal purchases are a commercial matter for the CEGB.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions have taken place between his Department and the officials of(a) the Euratom

  761
  Safeguards Agency and (b)the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Division, on the subject of the fungibility of nuclear materials under safeguards controls.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The international requirements covering fungibility of materials are contained in article 20 of the Official Journal of the European Communities, Commission regulation 3227/76 of 19 October 1976. No recent discussions have taken place on these requirements with Euratom. The IAEA is concerned solely with the total amounts of nuclear material not its origin.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions have existed(a) since May 1979 and (b) since June 1986, to ensure that plutonium originating in safeguarded electricity board reactors in the United Kingdom has never been put into the military unsafeguarded stockpile following reprocessing of Magnox spent fuel at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Pursuant to the requirements of article 14 of INFCIRC 263 the Department of Energy must approve all withdrawals of nuclear material from safeguards. It is Government policy that plutonium originating from the electricity board reactors will not be used for defence purposes.

  Natural Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average spot market price in 1988 for commercial natural uranium traded(a)within Euratom member states and (b)to Euratom member states from outside the European Community.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Euratom Supply Agency's report for 1988 shows that the average price of natural uranium deliveries made during the year to the electricity utilities of the European Community under spot contracts was 35·5 ecu per kilogramme of uranium.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many flue gas desulphurisation plants have been installed in coal-fired and oil-fired power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Work is currently under way on the first of the flue gas desulphurisation retrofits: the 4,000 MW Drax power station.

  Electrical Accidents
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in electrical accidents in each year since 1978–79, distinguishing between domestic and other users and electricity industry staff.

  Coal Imports

  Thousand tonnes

  Country of origin1

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total 1979–88

  Australia

  2,164

  2,847

  1,791

  1,143

  1,987

  1,859

  5,456

  3,822

  3,459

  3,536

  28,064

  United States of America

  1,031

  3,653

  1,954

  2,053

  1,142

  3,344

  3,145

  3,560

  2,890

  4,261

  27,033

  Poland

  658

  446

  142

  320

  509

  1,359

  1,418

  1,217

  1,083

  1,270

  8,422

  Federal Republic of Germany

  229

  80

  132

  334

  482

  959

  746

  439

  256

  182

  3,839

  South Africa

  38

  66

  80

  67

  58

  257

  725

  312

  188

  276

  2,067

  1 This list shows the five principal exporting sources over the whole of the 10-year period requested. For 1988 the principal exporters to this country were:

  762
  Mr. Wakeham
  The following figures are applicable:

  Domestic fatalities1

  Electric shock2

  1978

  52

  n/a

  1979

  59

  64

  1980

  58

  82

  1981

  54

  102

  1982

  66

  88

  1983

  42

  99

  1984

  31

  72

  1985

  40

  108

  1986

  40

  89

  1987

  46

  79

  1988

  28

  n/a

  1 Domestic fatalities reported by the electricity boards.

  2 Electric shock injuries reported to Department of Trade and Industry by 20 hospitals strategically situated.

  Fatalities and Injuries to Electricity Board Employees:

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  Over three day injuries

  1978

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  1

  11

  61

  1982

  2

  12

  64

  1983

  1

  15

  n/a

  1984

  3

  10

  n/a

  1985

  nil

  7

  n/a

  1986–87

  3

  53

  63

  1987–88

  5

  41

  56

  Fatalities and injuries to employees involved in contact with electricity in all industries

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  Over three day injuries

  1978

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  13

  92

  557

  1982

  23

  126

  565

  1983

  18

  136

  n/a

  1984

  19

  151

  n/a

  1985

  12

  148

  n/a

  1986–87

  23

  328

  532

  1987–88

  20

  308

  552

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list for each year since 1979 the tonnage and country of origin of the five principal sources of coal imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:
  763

  Thousand tonnes in 1988

  United States of America

  4,261

  Australia

  3,536

  Poland

  1,270

  Colombia

  574

  Canada

  553

  Source: Customs and Excise. Overseas Trade Statistics as published in D. Energy, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the names of the board members of electricity boards in England and Wales, giving the date of their appointment, salaries and, where full time, their previous job and, where part time, their other jobs.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:

  Board membership of the electricity boards of England and Wales as at 8 November 1989.

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appointment

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  Lord Marshall of Goring, Kt, CBE

  Chairman

  1 July 1982

  G. A. W. Blackman, CBE

  Deputy Chairman

  16 April 1986

  J. W. Baker

  Full-time Member

  5 September 1980

  D. A. Davis

  Full-time Member

  5 June 1984

  F. Ledger, OBE

  Full-time Member

  16 April 1986

  R. V. Giordano

  Non-executive Member

  1 July 1982

  Sir Terence Beckett, KBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 January 1987

  D. A. Walker

  Non-executive Member

  1 May 1987

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appointment

  London Electricity Board

  J. J. Wilson

  Chairman

  10 March 1986

  C. A. Prendergast, CBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 August 1983

  L. W. G. Priestley

  Non-executive Member

  1 October 1983

  R. B. Yearsley

  Non-executive Member

  1 September 1984

  The Right Hon. Baroness Gardner of Parkes, JP

  Non-executive Member

  19 November 1984

  M. Young

  Non-executive Member

  26 January 1987

  G. M. W. Owen

  Non-executive Member

  1 May 1989

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  South Eastern Electricity Board

  G. A. Squair

  Chairman

  1 June 1983

  D. A. Lovesey

  Deputy Chairman

  29 April 1987

  Dame Margaret Weston, DBE

  Non-executive Member

  23 February 1981

  R. A. Cox, CBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 June 1983

  Sir Ian McLeod, JP

  Non-executive member

  1 August 1983

  M. J. Calvert, JP

  Non-executive Member

  14 January 1985

  A. Ferry, MBE

  Non-executive member

  6 April 1987

  Sir Keith Stuart

  Non-executive Member

  2 October 1989

  764

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  Southern Electricity Board

  D. A. Ross

  Chairman

  1 April 1984

  H. R. Casley

  Deputy Chairman

  1 October 1986

  A. G. Stoughton-Harris

  Non-executive Member

  1 February 1981

  R. J. Cowley

  Non-executive Member

  1 December 1986

  N. G. L. Timpson

  Non-executive Member

  1 January 1987

  G. H. Wilson

  Non-executive Member

  30 May 1989

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appointment

  South Western Electricity Board

  A. W. Nicol

  Chairman

  29 April 1987

  J. J. Seed

  Deputy Chairman

  1 June 1986

  J. O. Gough, MBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 October 1980

  J. R. W. R. Carew Pole

  Non-executive member

  1 June 1981

  A. P. Hichens

  Non-executive member

  3 July 1989

  A. N. Thatcher

  Non-executive member

  3 July 1989

  C. M. Fisher

  Non-executive member

  10 July 1989

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appointment

  Eastern Electricity Board

  J. C. Smith, CBE

  Chairman

  1 October 1982

  W. Waring

  Deputy Chairman

  18 July 1983

  I. D. Coutts, CBE

  Non-Executive Member

  26 May 1982

  R. C. G. Chesterman, OBE

  Non-Executive Member

  1 September 1984

  Professor R. J. Eden, OBE

  Non-Executive Member

  1 June 1985

  J. N. Duncan

  Non-Executive Member

  15 September 1989

  M. S. Schreiber

  Non-Executive Member

  15 September 1989

  Sir Graham Wilkins

  Non-Executive Member

  15 September 1989

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  East Midlands Electricity Board

  J. F. Harris

  Chairman

  1 October 1982

  D. W. Cowe

  Deputy Chairman

  1 November 1985

  G. H. Boyle

  Non-executive Member

  1 June 1981

  Mrs. D. J. Parker

  Non-executive Member

  1 July 1983

  G. N. Corah

  Non-executive Member

  12 March 1984

  A. G. Schroeder

  Non-executive Member

  3 March 1986

  765

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  R. N. Gunn

  Non-executive Member

  1 August 1989

  A. N. R. Rudd

  Non-executive Member

  1 August 1989

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appointment

  Midlands Electricity Board

  B. S. Townsend

  Chairman

  1 April 1986

  R. K. Young

  Deputy Chairman

  1 July 1987

  F. C. Graves, OBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 October 1980

  Dr. M. D. Skillicorn

  Non-executive Member

  23 March 1981

  Dr. B. E. Marsh, JP

  Non-executive Member

  1 January 1984

  P. B. G. Williams

  Non-executive Member

  1 January 1984

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  South Wales Electricity Board

  J. W. Evans

  Chairman

  1 April 1984

  D. H. Jones

  Deputy Chairman

  10 October 1988

  J. Foley, MBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 January 1984

  P. J. Phillips, OBE

  Non-executive Member

  11 June 1984

  Mrs. V. Pollard

  Non-executive Member

  1 January 1988

  D. J. Prosser

  Non-executive Member

  3 April 1989

  P. W. L. Morgan

  Non-executive Member

  1 August 1989

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board

  B. H. Weston

  Chairman

  3 September 1985

  R. T. Gales

  Deputy Chairman

  1 March 1978

  Dr. R. H. Cummings, OBE

  Non-executive Member

  7 January 1980

  J. M. Griffiths, OBE, JP

  Non-executive Member

  8 January 1981

  Mrs. S. M. N. Garston

  Non-executive Member

  9 March 1981

  R. B. de Zouche, OBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 April 1984

  J. A. Hooson

  Non-executive Member

  1 August 1984

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appointment

  Yorkshire Electricity Board

  J. Porteous

  Chairman

  1 November 1984

  J. S. Tysoe

  Deputy Chairman

  3 September 1985

  D. B. Clark, CBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 November 1980

  P. A. Smith

  Non-executive Member

  1 June 1981

  J. P. M. Denny

  Non-executive Member

  19 March 1984

  J. A. Rigg, CBE

  Non-executive Member

  1 May 1989

  J. N. Hardman

  Non-executive Member

  1 May 1989

  Mrs. D. C. Eccles

  Non-executive Member

  1 September 1989

  766

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  North Eastern Electricity Board

  D. R. Morris

  Chairman

  5 June 1989

  J. A. Harmsworth

  Deputy Chairman

  1 January 1978

  J. R. Holdsworth

  Non-executive Member

  1 April 1989

  Professor J. L. J. Machin

  Non-executive Member

  1 June 1984

  P. D. Nicholson

  Non-executive Member

  16 December 1985

  Name

  Status

  Date of Appoinment

  North Western Electricity Board

  K. G. Harvey

  Chairman

  6 November 1989

  A. Crowder

  Deputy Chairman

  24 January 1983

  J. V. Parsons

  Non-executive Member

  16 January 1984

  J. Brown, MBE, JP

  Non-executive Member

  3 February 1984

  N. D. Root

  Non-executive Member

  18 April 1984

  Mrs. J. M. Wilson

  Non-executive Member

  1 February 1988

  All the dates of appointment listed are first dates of appointment. Some members have been reappointed since those dates.

  The list does not include the area electricity consultative council chairmen who are members of the area electricity boards but are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The following salaries are paid to board members:

  (i) Salaries for CEGB chairman and deputy chairman:

  The chairman is paid £111,000 per annum. The deputy chairman is paid in the salary range £75,000–£80,000.

  (ii) Salaries for CEGB full-time members:

  Full-time members are paid in the salary range £60,000–£70,000 per annum.

  (iii) Salaries for CEGB non-executive members:

  Two members are paid under £8,000 per annum; One member is unpaid.

  (iv)Salaries for area electricity board chairmen:

  The chairmen are paid in the salary range £45,000–80,000 per annum.

  (v) Salaries for area electricity board deputy chairmen:

  The deputy chairmen are paid in the salary range £45,000–£50,000 per annum.

  (vi) Salaries for area electricity board non-executive members:

  Non-executive members receive under £5,000 per annum.

  It is not possible without disproportionate cost to provide details of each appointee's background.

  Coal Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the basis of his Department's assumption that the price of coal at delivered pence per therm will remain stable between now and 1999.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Relatively little weight can be attached to assumptions about coal prices as far ahead as 1999. The delivered price of coal will depend on commercial negotiations between coal suppliers and their customers.

  Fuel Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what was the total of coal exported by the United Kingdom in each year since 1973–74(a) in tonnes and (b) in value at constant prices;

  (2) what was the total of coal imported by the United Kingdom in each year since 1973–74 (a) in tonnes and (b) in value at constant prices;

  (3) what was the total of oil and gas exported by the United Kingdom in each year since 1973–74 (a) in tonnes and (b) in value at constant prices;

  (4) what was the total of oil and gas imported by the United Kingdom in each year since 1973–74 (a) in tonnes and (b) in value at constant prices;

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information for exports and imports for each year since 1973 is shown in table 1 (volumes) and table 2 (values at constant 1985 prices). Gas is natural gas (there are no exports), and oil is the sum of crude oil and refined petroleum products:—

  Table 1

  Thousand tonnes

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Coal

  Oil

  Coal

  Gas (coal equivalent)

  Oil

  1973

  2,693

  19,882

  1,675

  1,200

  135,862

  1974

  1,865

  16,183

  3,541

  1,000

  129,164

  1975

  2,182

  15,079

  5,083

  1,300

  103,174

  1976

  1,436

  19,907

  2,837

  1,600

  102,994

  1977

  1,941

  30,483

  2,439

  2,100

  84,832

  1978

  2,266

  37,415

  2,352

  6,700

  80,139

  1979

  2,339

  53,172

  4,375

  12,600

  73,890

  1980

  4,042

  54,517

  7,334

  15,400

  58,890

  1981

  9,513

  66,740

  4,290

  16,400

  47,437

  1982

  7,387

  74,812

  4,062

  15,600

  45,456

  1983

  6,340

  84,157

  4,456

  16,600

  40,120

  1984

  2,440

  92,236

  8,894

  20,200

  53,480

  1985

  2,558

  98,511

  12,732

  20,100

  51,877

  1986

  2,748

  102,309

  10,554

  18,800

  55,471

  1987

  2,342

  99,165

  9,781

  17,300

  53,590

  1988

  1,737

  89,078

  11,993

  15,500

  53,995

  Source: Customs and Excise, Overseas Trade Statistics as published in D. Energy, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics. (The 1988 oil exports figure reflects subsequent revisions.)

  Table 2

  £ million at 1985 prices1

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Coal

  Oil

  Coal

  Gas

  Oil

  1973

  104

  3,682

  90

  90

  21,917

  1974

  72

  3,031

  189

  75

  20,837

  1975

  84

  2,826

  272

  98

  16,644

  1976

  55

  3,673

  152

  120

  16,615

  1977

  75

  5,367

  130

  158

  13,684

  1978

  87

  6,475

  126

  504

  12,927

  1979

  90

  9,053

  234

  947

  11,918

  1980

  156

  9,315

  392

  1,158

  9,498

  1981

  366

  11,265

  229

  1,233

  7,650

  1982

  284

  12,591

  217

  1,173

  7,329

  1983

  244

  14,154

  238

  1,248

  6,468

  1984

  94

  15,486

  475

  1,519

  8,620

  1985

  98

  16,576

  681

  1,511

  8,363

  1986

  106

  17,229

  564

  1,413

  8,944

  1987

  90

  16,673

  523

  1,301

  8,641

  1988

  67

  15,026

  641

  1,165

  8,706

  Source: Volumes from table 1 revalued at 1985 prices.

  1 Figures at 1985 constant prices have been derived by applying the unit value for exports and imports in 1985 to the relevant published volumes in each of the years 1973 to 1988.

  PCBs (Continental Shell)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf have equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are no significant quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls on any offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Nuclear Safety Research
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what guidance he has given to the Health and Safety Commission on the exercise of the responsibilities for nuclear safety research which it is to take over from his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I wrote to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission in August enclosing a set of guidelines within which I wish the commission to work when it takes over these responsibilities on 1 April next year. The guidelines describe the objectives which I wish the commission to pursue; the area and nature of the research for which it is to become responsible; and the principles by which the commission should define the programmes which it sponsors, and by which the executive should recover the costs of these programmes from the nuclear power industry. A copy of the guidelines has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Gas Explosions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in accidents involving gas explosions in each year since 1978–79, distinguishing between domestic and other users and gas industry staff.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information for injuries involving domestic and other users, and gas industry employees is show in the tables.

  Table 1

  Injuries caused by gas explosions involving domestic and other users of piped flammable gas in Great Britain reported1 to enforcing authorities

  Fatal2

  Non-fatal3

  1981–82

  37

  168

  1982–83

  28

  116

  1983–84

  27

  124

  1984–85

  41

  181

  1985–86

  27

  166

  1986–87

  12

  58

  1987–88

  12

  72

  1 Injuries arising from incidents reported under the 1972 Gas Act for the years 1981–82 to 1985–86 and under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR) for later years.

  2 Under the Gas Act initially non-fatal injuries which later became fatal were updated and reclassified. Under RIDDOR, the supplier/fitter is only required to notify HSE upon the receipt of an injury notification and may not be aware of the subsequent death of an injured person.

  3 Under RIDDOR figures relate to injuries causing hospitalisation for more than 24 hours. Under the previous legislation, overnight stays in hospital were the basis of the reporting requirement.

  769

  Table 2

  Injuries to employees involving gas explosions in the gas production and distribution sector1 reported2 to enforcing authorities

  1986–875

  1987–885

  Fatal

  —

  —

  Major3

  3

  —

  Over 3 day4

  4

  1

  1 The production and distribution of gas sector is defined as Standard Industrial Classification 1968 Minimum List Heading 601.

  2 Injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR). Under the reporting regulations applying to earlier years it is not possible to distinguish injuries from explosions from other injuries.

  3 As defined under RIDDOR.

  4 Injuries causing incapacity for work for more than 3 days.

  5 Year beginning 1 April.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of the set-aside programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  This year we have received applications from about 1,400 United Kingdom farmers to set-aside more than 55,000 hectares of land. This encouraging further response brings the total amount of land set aside under the scheme to 110,000 hectares.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land has now been set aside.

  Mr. Maclean
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham).

  Livestock (Slaughter)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what codes of practice the Government propose to issue in response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of livestock at slaughter.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am proposing to issue codes covering the welfare of livestock at slaughter, the construction and layout of slaughtering premises and the use of electrical stunning equipment. These will give effect to recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Sheep (Hill Farms)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about levels of support for sheep which are to be used for breeding on hill farms, which are not put to the ram until they are 18 months old, under the new sheep regime.

  Mr. Curry
  The special concession will continue under which these sheep will be able to receive premium at the same special rate which applies to goats. This will be set at 80 per cent. of the rate for ewes in 1990 and 70 per cent. thereafter.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further discussions he plans to hold regarding the future of the sheep meat regime.

  Mr. Curry
  We will continue to consult the industry on the implementation of the revised sheepmeat regime.

  Chemical Fertilisers
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Ministry is offering to farmers about reducing the quantity of chemical fertilisers they are using to prevent high nitrate build-ups in the soil.

  Mr. Maclean
  ADAS advises farmers on the avoidance of excessive or untimely fertiliser usage, particularly autumn nitrogen applications. We are also introducing a pilot scheme to limit nitrate leaching in sensitive areas.

  Countryside
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies his Department will be developing to help maintain the present character of Britain's countryside.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's plans to further conservation of the countryside.

  Mr. Gummer
  A number of important measures have been introduced by my Department in the last few years aimed at maintaining and improving the character of our countryside. The effectiveness of these measures is being monitored and the assessments will help in the determination of future policies having the same objectives.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department has taken in the last three months further to safeguard egg supplies from the effects of salmonella.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have introduced two amending orders on the testing of poultry laying and breeding flocks and hatcheries, and five codes of practice on the control of salmonella in protein and feedingstuffs.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to improve the effectiveness of his Department's policies on minimising the harmful effects of pesticide spray drift.

  Mr. Gummer
  Users of pesticides must avoid the harmful effects of spray drifts, and we have published a draft code of practice to help farmers and growers comply with their legal obligations.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the operation of the advisory committee on pesticides.
  771
  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what publications his Department has recently produced on pesticides.

  Mr. Maclean
  During 1989 my Department has produced, or collaborated in the production of:"The Pesticide Register" a monthly list of new approvals;
  "Pesticides 1989" an annual list of approved products;
  "Pesticides and Food: A Balanced View" a free booklet which answers the questions most often asked by consumers;
  "Report of the Working Party on Pesticides Residues 1985–1988";
  "Wildlife Poisoning Incidents Report 1987"; plus evaluations by the advisory committee on pesticides of five new active ingredients and various ad hoc surveys.

  Untreated Milk
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be introducing regulations to control the sale of untreated milk in England and Wales.

  Mr. Curry
  The sale of untreated milk is already controlled under the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations 1988. I expect to lay new regulations before the House shortly, which will require untreated milk to be labelled more fully and to be subject to more sophisticated testing.

  Horticultural Research
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his planned reforms for the organisation of horticultural research will take effect.

  Mr. Gummer
  The aim is for the new organisation to be in place by 1 April 1990.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from organisations representing the fishing boat building industry regarding the state of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received one representation from the fishing boat building industry.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making towards publishing proposals which will reduce capacity of the fishing fleet in line with the target set under the multiannual guidance programme.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries Ministers hope to be able to announce before the end of the year what additional measures, if any, are considered necessary to achieve the target reductions.

  Milk Products (Labelling)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider introducing a scheme to label milk products when hormone treatment has been used on the cattle.
  772
  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans at present to introduce a mandatory requirement to this effect, but it is open to the industry to introduce voluntary arrangements if they wish.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed at the last meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 25 October to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) at column 507.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to oppose European Council proposals to change the formula used to calculate pigmeat sluicegate prices and import levies.

  Mr. Curry
  At the Agriculture Council on 23 and 24 October, I argued that the pig industry needed a chance to recover their 1988 losses and now was not the time to be reducing levies in the way the Commission had proposed.

  Hormone Growth Promoters
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will re-examine the law relating to the prosecution of farmers who implant hormone growth promoters in cattle.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Animals and Fresh Meat (Hormonal Substances) Regulations 1988 already provide for substantial penalties for farmers convicted of using hormone implants in their animals. Additional controls will be the subject of an announcement shortly.

  Microwave Ovens
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the makers of microwave ovens on the subject of improved user instructions.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials regularly meet relevant organisations, including representatives of the oven manufacturers, to discuss all matters relevant to the safe, use of microwave ovens. I attended one such meeting in July at which I stressed the importance the Government attach to this issue.

  Butter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of butter exported by the European Economic Community over the past 12 months; and what was the range of prices at which it was disposed of.

  Mr. Curry
  The most recent 12-month period for which final figures are available is from July 1988 to June 1989 inclusive. Some 483,000 tonnes of butter were exported by the European Community, at prices ranging from about £150 per tonne for old intervention stock sold to the USSR, to around £1,100 per tonne for fresh product exported on to the world market.

  Food From Britain
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what overseas trade fairs Food From Britain has participated in during the last six months.

  Mr. Curry
  Food From Britain has participated in the following nine overseas events since 1 April 1989;

  Date

  Event

  Place

  12 to 13 April

  Foodex '89

  Dublin

  7 to 10 May

  FMI

  Chicago

  6 to 10 May

  MIAD

  Milan

  23 to 24 May

  PLMA

  Brussels

  28 to 30 May

  Fine Food Show

  Toronto

  25 to 28 June

  Fancy Food Show

  Atlanta

  3 to 6 September

  Fine Food Show

  Sydney

  14 to 19 October

  ANUGA

  Cologne

  20 to 24 October

  Expo CT

  Milan

  5 to 8 November

  Gulf Food Exhibition

  Dubai

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 9 November 1989.

  Pigs
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the pig sector of the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Curry
  We remain in close touch with the representatives of the pig industry and trade about matters of concern to them.

  Food White Paper
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received from the food industry since his White Paper was published.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since publication of the White Paper "Food Safety—Protecting the Consumer" in July this year I have received numerous comments from a wide range of food industry interests, including those of food manufacturers, distributors and retailers.

  Eggs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on health standards of imports of eggs into the United Kingdom.
  774
  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 1 November at column 210.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute a review of the overall effectiveness of recent legislation affecting the egg producing industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are continuing to monitor the effects of the measures introduced to tackle the problem of salmonella in eggs.

  Horticulture (Gas Prices)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the effect on horticultural gas prices of the response by British Gas to the seven-point plan put forward by Ofgas.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received no representations specifically on the seven-point plan. I am, however, keeping in touch with the horticultural industry on the question of gas supplies in general and know that producers are currently evaluating the proposals. This subject was discussed at a recent meeting between Baroness Trumpington and NFU representatives.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his current plans for the maintenance and development of the national fruit collection; where he intends that it should, in the future, be located; who he intends to manage it; how it will be funded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have made clear their intention to continue to fund the national fruit collection. My Department is in active discussion with three organisations interested in taking over responsibility for the management of the national fruit collection in the event of the closure of Brogdale as a Ministry experimental horticultural station. The East Mailing Trust and Wye college would transfer it to their sites whilst Swale borough council is co-ordinating local initiatives to retain it under the direction of a trust at Brogdale. Whichever option may be taken up, the collection will be maintained to a high standard as a living, growing collection.

  Hormone Implants
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on stockpiles of hormone implants held within the European Community.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 31 October 1989 to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) at column 212.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the agricultural and food research council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received a number of letters about the council's plans for restructuring its research institutes,
  775
  particularly in relation to the Langford laboratory of the Institute of Food Research. These are matters for the council itself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Organic Agriculture and Horticulture
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development in the United Kingdom of organic agriculture and horticulture.

  Mr. Curry
  A major step taken by my Department was to initiate the setting up by Food From Britain of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards (UKROFS) which on 2 May launched production and processing standards for organic produce and an independent certification and inspection system.

  But the development of organic agriculture and horiculture is being helped in a number of other ways. I recently announced that we are introducing a comprehensive economic survey of organic farming, the results of which should provide organic farmers and growers with a better understanding of the economics of production. The fallow option of the set-aside scheme enables farmers wishing to switch to organic farming to prepare their land without forgoing income entirely. We are considering an organic option under the forthcoming extensification scheme. Organic farmers are able to benefit from the farm and conservation grant scheme and from assistance towards the establishment of co-operatives. A sizeable part of our R and D programme is of interest to the organic sector and we are receiving advice from the organic sector, co-ordinated by UKROFS, or specific R and D requirements. Finally ADAS is offering a specialised countrywide service to organic farmers and growers.

  Council of Fisheries Ministers
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Fisheries Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  On 27 November. The draft agenda is not yet available but I will seek to ensure that the United Kingdom's concerns are properly met.

  Fishing Ports
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to visit fishing ports before the next meeting of the European Community's Council of Fisheries Ministers.

  Mr. Curry
  I have already visited Fleetwood, Grimsby and Lowestoft and will be going to Hull, Brixham and Newlyn before the next Fisheries Council.

  Overseas Food Fairs
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which overseas food fairs his Department has visited in the last three months.

  Mr. Curry
  Together with two of my officials I attended the A NUGA food fair in Cologne on 16 October, when I visited a number of stands in the British pavilion. I must 776
  congratulate the British companies exhibiting there for their marketing effort which I felt compared favourably with that of other countries.

  Poultry (Testing)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce amendments to the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order to assist small egg producers.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 3 November 1989 at column 397.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Consumer Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I last met representatives of the National Consumer Council on 14 August when we had a broad discussion on various food law and food safety issues.

  Egg Imports
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the levels of imports of foreign eggs.

  Mr. Curry
  Confirmed data are only available to the end of September.

  In the first nine months of this year imports of eggs were about 30 per cent. up on those in the comparable months of 1988. But, as imports from such a small proportion of total United Kingdom supply, it is likely that these will represent no more than around 3 per cent. of United Kingdom output in 1989. Over the same nine-month period exports in 1989 increased by about 100 per cent. over 1988 levels and, to the end of September, exports exceeded imports by over 200,000 cases (each of 360 eggs).

  Research and Seed Certification
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support is given by the food and agricultural industries to agricultural research and seed certification.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our best estimates are that the private sector spends around £320 million on research and development on agriculture and food. No direct support is given by the agriculture and food industries to seed certification. The costs incurred by the Agriculture Departments in connections with statutory certification schemes are recovered in full from the seed industry through fees currently prescribed in the Seeds Fees (Amendment) Regulations 1987.

  Food Safety
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his priorities for food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's priorities for food safety were set out in the recent White Paper "Food Safety
  777
  —Protecting The Consumer" (CM. 732). The Bill to be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits is a major priority.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his role in protecting food from contamination by radioactivity.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department plays a key role and takes whatever means are necessary to protect food from contamination by radioactivity.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his food advisory committee last met; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The agendas of food advisory committee meetings are published in advance. The committee last met on 19 October 1989 and I have sent the hon. Member the press release of 28 September 1989 which listed the main agenda items.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 2 November,Official Report, column 317, if he will list the organisations to which he writes prior to a food advisory committee meeting requesting comments on agenda items; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I indicated in my earlier reply, the agendas are published in a press notice so that it is open to any organisation or individual to comment to the secretary of the food advisory committee on matters currently before the committee. Approximately 900 persons or organisations are also sent copies of food press notices. I will write in due course to the hon. Member giving the list of names.

  Battery Fowls
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of battery fowls suffer broken limbs on the way to slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  Recent MAFF-funded research has indicated that about 30 per cent. of end of lay hens from battery units suffer from broken bones. Most of these are thought to occur when the birds are removed from the cages. The problem is not confined to battery units as further research indicates that birds from other systems—percheries and free range—have more old breaks than birds kept in cages.

  Both MAFF and the industry are funding more research into the problem. The Government are supporting action by the industry to reduce the incidence of broken bones and plans to introduce legislation designed to improve cage design in order to minimise injury when the birds are removed.

  Dairy Sector
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments his Department has recently undertaken on the present profitability of the dairy sector.
  778
  Mr. Curry
  My Department carries out annual assessments of profitability in the dairy and other farming sectors, the results of which are published in February each year in reports entitled "Agriculture in the United Kingdom". The most recent report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, shows the net income from dairy farming in 1988–89 rose in real terms to its highest level since 1982–83.

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since taking up my post in July, I have not yet met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, but I know my Scottish colleagues, with whom I am in close touch, are in frequent contact.

  Farm Visits
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last made an on-farm visit; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since my appointment in July, I have made a number of tours in the regions, including on farm visits. During the most recent such visit, on 3 November, a range of countryside matters were discussed, including in particular the maintenance of wildlife habitat.

  Animal Products (Licensing)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to consider socio-economic criteria in assessing whether to grant licences to animal products under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Maclean
  The purpose of licensing under the Medicines Act is to protect public and animal health and I do not believe that socio-economic or other additional criteria contribute to this purpose.

  Pigmeat Prices
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what improvements in pigmeat prices his Department has recorded during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  Over the past 12 months the monthly average of the all pigs price, as calculated by the Meat and Livestock Commission, has been as follows:

  Price

  1988

  October

  93·07

  November

  97·54

  December

  101–23

  1989

  January

  99·08

  February

  100·62

  779

  Price

  March

  102·56

  April

  105·83

  May

  109·43

  June

  113·44

  July

  115·85

  August

  116·94

  September

  127·41

  October1

  133·21

  1 To week ending 21 October 1989.

  Fish (Drugs)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what drugs he has licensed for use with fish in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  In the last 12 months licences have been issued for Aquaguard, an ectoparasiticide for use against infestations of sea lice, and for furogen immersion vaccine and furogen injection vaccine for use against certain strains of Aeromonas salmonicida.

  Farm and Conservation Grants
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contributions to pollution control have resulted from grants made under the farm and conservation grants scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the farm and conservation grant scheme grants of 50 per cent. are available throughout the country for the installation, replacement and improvement of facilities for handling, storing and treating slurry and silage effluent. This is the highest rate of grant available in Europe. It underlines the Government's determination to assist farmers in the vital task of preventing pollution of water courses by farm waste. The industry have reacted very positively and uptake of new grants is high.

  Nitrate Fertilisation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average level of nitrate fertilisation of United Kingdom farmland for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Data in the precise form requested is not available, but average total inorganic nitrogen usage on all crops and grass in England anti Wales has been as follows (expressed in kg/ha):

  Year

  kg/ha

  1979

  114

  1980

  120

  1981

  130

  1982

  132

  1983

  139

  1984

  147

  1985

  146

  1986

  146

  1987

  147

  1988

  133

  Whaling
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a continuation after 1990 of the moratorium on commercial whaling.
  780
  Mr. Curry
  We played a leading role within the International Whaling Commission in the achievement of the moratorium on commercial whaling. We have worked hard to ensure that IWC members adhere to it. It is to be reviewed next year on the basis of major scientific work on whale stocks and appropriate management procedures. We shall consider these results very carefully. If we are not satisfied we shall press for the continuation of the moratorium.

  Salmon Fishing
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies his Department is pursuing in order to improve the prospects for the United Kingdom salmon fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are pursuing a wide range of policies for the conservation and management of salmon stocks which are beneficial to the United Kingdom salmon fishing industry, whether recreational or commercial. In England and Wales, the National Rivers Authority, established in September 1989, has the duty of maintaining, improving and developing salmon fisheries. In Scotland, district salmon fishery boards have similar powers and duties within their district. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture in conjunction with the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Foyle Fisheries Commission are responsible for the conservation and protection of salmon.

  There are substantial programmes of research and development on salmon which contribute to these aims. Finally, the United Kingdom—through the Commission of the European Communities which is a contracting party—plays an active role in the work of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about his plans for the introduction of food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have nothing to add to my reply given on 27 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) at column 947.

  Skilled Labour
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure an improvement in the current shortage of skilled labour within the agriculture industry.

  Mr. Curry
  It is for the industry to respond to changing circumstances and to assess the levels of skilled labour required to sustain viable enterprises. In so doing full advantage should be taken of the excellent skills training facilities available from the agricultural training board and the agricultural colleges.

  Farmland Sales
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy towards the practice of dividing farmland in the south of England into small plots and selling them off separately.
  781
  Mr. Maclean
  This is not a matter for Government intervention. Owners have a fundamental right to dispose of their property as they see fit.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding research and development in agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  I remain firmly committed to supporting work directed at public good issues such as food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare, and to the underpinning of industry's commercial research base through support for far market strategic research.

  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out in the Official Report a timetable indicating the anticipated progress, for the various commodities, towards the eventual removal of monetary compensatory amounts arising from green currencies.

  Mr. Curry
  Following pressure from the United Kingdom Government the Council and the Commission have agreed that monetary gaps, and therefore monetary compensatory amounts, should be removed by the end of 1992. The devaluations that were agreed at the last two price settlements represented steps towards this objective. The Commission is to report shortly on ways of completing the process of dismantlement.

  Papain
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce guidelines on the administration of the meat tenderising enzyme papain.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 November to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) at column 211.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the presence of pollen and other airborne material derived from flowering crops of oilseed rape giving the concentration in the atmosphere above the crop and the maximum extent of detectable contamination; and if he will give comparable information for other agricultural crops.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has no information on the concentration of airborne material from oilseed rape in the atmosphere above the crop, nor comparable information on other crops. I am aware that some experiments have been carried out by individuals to detect the presence of oilseed rape pollen in the atmosphere in the vicinity of the crop and further afield.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take any steps to encourage the breeding and production of varieties of oilseed rape which minimise the dispersal of pollen and other airborne material into the atmosphere.
  782
  Mr. Curry
  If it were shown conclusively that existing varieties of oilseed rape caused serious problems for human health we would consider what measures were necessary to tackle the problem. The breeding of varieties with specific properties could be one such measure.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of oilseed rape were harvested in 1989; what tonnage was produced; what was the value of the crop; and what subsidy was paid from public funds for its production or processing.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1989 oilseed rape production survey of England published a 25 October estimated production at 821,000 tonnes from 284,000 hectares. The value of the 1989 crop in the United Kingdom as a whole is still being assessed. Value estimates will be included in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" due to be published early in 1990. Production aid under the EC oilseeds scheme is being paid on the 1989 crop; final estimates of the amount paid will not be known until at least the end of the 1989–90 marketing year.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the countries in the European Community where evidence of cattle contracting the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been discovered.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Republic of Ireland.

  Cattle Offal
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations with which he consulted about his proposed ban on the use of cattle offal for human consumption.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following organisations were consulted:

  Agricultural Research Council—Meat Research Institute

  Agriculture and Food Research Council

  Animal Health Distributors (UK) Ltd

  Association of British Abattoir Owners

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of London Authorities

  Association of Meat Inspectors (GB) Ltd

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Sea and Airport Health Authorities

  Bacon and Meat Manufacturers' Association

  British Association of Canned and Preserved Food Importers and Distributors

  British Food Manufacturing Industries Research Association

  British Hotels and Restaurants Association

  British Medical Association

  British Multiple Retailers Association

  British Ports Association

  British Retail Association

  British Veterinary Association

  Butterworths Law of Food and Drugs

  Caterers Association of Great Britain

  Chemical Industries Association

  College for the Distributive Trades

  Consumers Association

  Consumers in the European Community Group (UK)

  Co-operative Meat Trade Technical Panel

  Co-operative Union Ltd

  Customs and Excise

  Dairy Trade Federation

  EC Commission

  783

  Environmental Health Briefing

  Faculty of Community Medicines

  Farm and Food Society

  Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives

  Federation of Freshmeat Wholesalers

  FMC (Meat) Limited

  Food and Drink Industry Council

  Food Manufacturers' Association

  Grain and Feed Trade Association

  Greyhound Racing Association

  Hide and Allied Trades Improvement Society

  Infant and Dietetic Food Association

  Institute of Food Science and Technology (UK)

  Institute of Meat

  Institute of Trading Standards Authorities

  Institution of Environmental Health Officers

  International Meat Trade Association

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Joint Animal By-Products Parliamentary and Advisory Committee

  Joint Consultative Council for the Meat Trade in the UK

  Joint Industrial Council for the Slaughterhouse Industry

  JS Engineering (Norfolk) Ltd.

  Lard Association

  Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage Association

  Livestock Auctioneers Market Committee for England and Wales

  Livestock Traders Association of Great Britain

  Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards

  Local Authority Conditions and Services Advisory Board

  Master of Bassetthounds Association

  Master of Deerhounds Association

  Master of Draghounds Association

  Master of Foxhounds Association

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Meat Industry Liaison Group

  Meat Manufacturers' Association

  Meat Trade Journal

  Meat Trades Annual

  National Animal Health Panel

  National Association of Tripe Dressers

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  National Cold Storage Federation

  National Committee of the Wholesale Provision Trade

  National Consumer Council

  National Council of Freshmeat Wholesalers

  National Farmers Union

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Federation of Meat Traders

  National Federation of Wholesale Grocers and Provision Merchants Association

  National Greyhound Racing Club

  National Office of Animal Health

  National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers

  Natural Sausage Casing Association

  Non-UK Provision Trade Association

  Parliamentary Committee Co-operative Union Limited

  Pet Food Manufacturers' Association

  Port of London Health Authority

  Retail Consortium

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  Royal Society for the Promotion of Health

  Smithfield Market Tenants' Association

  United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association

  United Kingdom Provision Trade Federation

  United Kingdom Renderers' Association

  United Kingdom Association of Frozen Food Producers

  United Kingdom Fellmongers Association

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce his ban on the use of cattle offal for human consumption; and if he will make a statement.
  784
  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 9 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

  Food Safety Directorate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the money allocated for his food safety directorate in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91.

  Mr. Gummer
  Not all the areas of the Ministry's work that constitute the new food safety directorate are currently subject to decentralised budgetary control for running costs and capital expenditure. Accordingly, there is no readily available estimate of the budgeted costs for this work in 1989–90. For 1990–91, the directorate as a whole will be subject to decentralised budgetary control for running costs and capital expenditure. Budget allocations for 1990–91 remain to be decided. Subject to the outcome of the current public expenditure survey we are planning significant increases in staffing for a number of areas of the directorate's work.

  Dr. David Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he expects his food safety directorate to start operating.

  Mr. Gummer
  The new food safety directorate will be in full operation by 20 November. I am proceeding to establish the new consumer panel as quickly as possible.

  EEC Foods
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the foods and the tonnage of surplus EEC foods that have been distributed to pensioners in the United Kingdom during the current year.

  Mr. Curry
  The information sought by the hon. Member is not available in the form requested. However, under the EC surplus food scheme the United Kingdom has some 3,000 tonnes of butter and 3,000 tonnes of beef available for distribution. All this produce has been released from intervention stores, and I have no reason to believe that most of it will not be distributed before the end of 1989. The timing of distribution is a matter for the designated organisations to decide according to local needs and their own capacity. Those who qualify for assistance under this Scheme are people in receipt of income support or family credit and those of no fixed abode or living in welfare hostels. Pensioners falling into one or other of these categories are, of course, eligible to receive produce.

  Landlord and Tenant Survey
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the Country Landowners Association landlord and tenant survey.

  Mr. Curry
  The Country Landowners Association has, of course, informed my right hon. Friend the Minister and me about the results of its survey but no further representations have been received.

WALES

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report for each year since 1978 the number of (a) private beds in non-National Health Service hospitals by hospital, (b) private beds in National Health Service hospitals by health authority and hospital and (c) amenity beds in National Health Service hospitals by health authority and hospitals.

  TABLE A

  Number of beds in non NHS hospitals

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11989

  St. Josephs, Gwent

  56

  56

  56

  56

  56

  56

  50

  North Wales Medical Centre, Gwynedd

  61

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  BUPA, South Glamorgan

  48

  48

  48

  48

  64

  74

  74

  St. Winifreds, South Glamorgan

  50

  50

  50

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Sancta Maria, West Glamorgan

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  33

  33

  The Yale Hospital, Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  Total

  255

  246

  246

  246

  212

  215

  228

  1 Figures are for 31 December each year up to and including 1987. The next available figures subsequent to 31 December 1987 are for 31 March 1989.

  Table B

  Authorisations of private in-patient facilities in NHS hospitals in Wales

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  Clwyd

  Royal Alexandra (a)

  4

  9(r)

  4

  7(r)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prince Edward WM (b)

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HM Stanley

  3

  3

  3

  5(r)

  3

  5(r)

  3

  5(r)

  3

  5(r)

  Colwyn Bay and West Denbigh (c)

  4

  4

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Abergele

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Ysybyty Glan Clwyd

  —

  —

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Wrexham and East Denbigh WM (d)

  5

  7(r)

  5

  7(r)

  5

  7(r)

  5

  7(r)

  5

  7(r)

  5

  7(r)

  Maelor

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Pembrokeshire Cwm (e)

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bronglais

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Llanelli

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  —

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Gwent

  Mount Pleasent

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  St. Woolos

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neville Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  Tywyn and District WM

  1

  10(r)

  1

  10(r)

  1

  8(r)

  1

  8(r)

  1

  8(r)

  1

  8(r)

  Eryri (f)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  St. Davids

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Llandudno

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Caernarfon Eye and Cottage (g)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Caernarfon and Anglesey (h)

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Ysbyty Gwynedd (i)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mountain Ash

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  East Glamorgan

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Prince Charles

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Bridgend

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Princess of Wales (j)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  Nil

  786
  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: The information requested is given in the following tables in respect of:

  (a) the number of private beds in non National Health Service Hospitals (1982 onwards)—table A;

  (b) the number of private beds in National Health Service hospitals by health authority and hospital—table B;

  (c) the number of amenity beds in the National Health Service by health authority, (1980 onwards)-table C.

  A table showing the distribution of amenity beds in NHS hospitals by hospital could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  787

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  South Glamorgan

  Prince of Wales (Rhydlafar)

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  UHW

  —

  —

  —

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  Llandough

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  5

  CRI

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  4

  Velindre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sully

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rookwood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  Singleton (m)

  2

  2(r)

  2

  2(r)

  2

  2(r)

  2

  2(r)

  2

  2(r)

  2

  2(r)

  Morriston

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Neath (m)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 (p)

  Clwyd

  Royal Alexandra (a)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prince Edward WM (b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HM Stanley

  3

  5(r)

  3

  5(r)

  1,0951

  (s)

  1,0951

  (s)

  1,0951

  (s)

  1,0951

  (s)

  Colwyn Bay and West Denbigh (c)

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Abergele

  1

  1

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  Ysybyty Glan Clwyd

  4

  4

  1,4601

  1,4601

  1,4601

  1,4601

  Wrexham and East Denbigh WM (d)

  5

  7(r)

  5

  7(r)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maelor

  4

  4

  2,5551

  2,5551

  2,5551

  2,5551

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General

  3

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  Pembrokeshire Cwm (e)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bronglais

  3

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  Llanelli

  1

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  3

  3

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  1,0951

  Gwent

  Mount Pleasent

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  St. Woolos

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Royal Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neville Hall

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Gwynedd

  Tywyn and District WM

  1

  5(r)

  3651

  (t)

  3651

  (t)

  3651

  (t)

  3651

  (t)

  3651

  (t)

  Eryri (f)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Davids

  2

  7301

  7301

  7301

  7301

  7301

  Llandudno

  4

  1,4601

  1,4601

  1,4601

  1,4601

  1,4601

  Caernarfon Eye and Cottage (g)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caernarfon and Anglesey (h)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ysybty Gwynedd (i)

  3

  2,1901

  2,1901

  2,1901

  2,1901

  2,1901

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mountain Ash

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Glamorgan

  1

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  Prince Charles

  1

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  Bridgend

  1

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  Princess of Wales (j)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  Nil

  South Glamorgan

  Prince of Wales (Rhydlafar)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UHW

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  7

  (k)

  Llandough

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  CRI

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Velindre

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sully

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rookwood

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Glamorgan

  Singleton (m)

  3

  3(r)

  1,0951

  (n)

  1,0951

  (n)

  1,0951

  (n)

  1,0951

  (n)

  1,0951

  (n)

  Morriston

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neath (m)

  1

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  3651

  Notes:

  (a) Change of use to long-stay psychiatric hospital.

  (b) Closed 1980.

  (c) Maternity hospital as of 1986.

  (d) Closed 1986.
  788 789
  (e) Closed 1987.

  (f) Hospital for the elderly as of 1984.

  (g) GP beds only.

  (h) Closed 1984.

  (i) Opened 1984.

  (j) Opened 1985.

  (k) Two beds to be used solely for emergency admission and only when the basic number of 10 beds is already occupied.

  (m) One emergency bed for flexible use (at either hospital but not at both).

  (n) Maximum of 1,095 bed days with no more than 365 bed days at Morriston.

  (p) All figures are as at 31 December except for 1989 which are as at 30 September.

  (r) Total number of beds/bed days allocated to health authorities which must not be exceeded at any given time.

  (s) 1,825 bed days (see (r)).

  (t) 2,920 bed days (see (r)).

  1 Authorisations in terms of bed days (1 bed=365 bed days).

  Table C

  Number of amenity beds at financial year end (March)

  1978

  1979

  11980

  11981

  1982

  1983

  21984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  n/a

  n/a

  24

  16

  27

  18

  15

  15

  17

  12

  12

  12

  East Dyfed

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  18

  12

  18

  17

  17

  17

  21

  21

  21

  Gwent

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  15

  15

  15

  15

  13

  12

  17

  17

  17

  Mid Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  6

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  12

  10

  12

  6

  10

  10

  8

  8

  8

  South Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  3

  0

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  West Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  9

  5

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  5

  6

  5

  Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  95

  86

  91

  93

  83

  85

  86

  85

  82

  72

  1 East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire recorded under East Dyfed.

  2 at 31 December 1983.

  790

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester
Earl Cairns Earl Cairns—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Marquess of Downshire The Marquess of Downshire—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Energy Efficiency: Resources
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering putting more resources into promotion of energy efficiency.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the energy efficiency obligations that the Electricity Act imposes on the privatised supply companies and the Office of Electricity Regulation will bring more resources to bear on the promotion of energy efficiency. Resources for the Government's Energy Efficiency Office are reviewed each year in the public expenditure survey. A statement on the outcome of this year's survey will be made shortly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. Does he agree that energy efficiency has now come to the centre of energy policy? It has been a matter of grave concern that in recent years the Government have reduced the contribution to the Energy Efficiency Office. Can he give an assurance that in the forthcoming statement to which he referred that factor will be taken properly into account and that proper signals will be given to the country at large that energy efficiency is now crucial both from the point of view of savings and of the environment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures for the next three years will be announced shortly. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to energy efficiency at the United Nations yesterday. At the Department of Energy we have refocused our information programme in order to provide specific information and advice on energy management in key industrial sectors and among major users in industrial areas. The key is our new best practice programme and the work of our regional energy efficiency officers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not clear that the Prime Minister gave the wrong signal yesterday at the United Nations by saying that nuclear energy was the way to solve the energy crisis and global warming? Is it not now clear that central to a policy on global warming and on energy efficiency is the conservation of energy and the finding of, commitment to, and exploitation of, alternative methods of generating electricity?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government accepted that nuclear power alone was not going to solve the threat of global warming but recognised that nuclear power had a positive role to play in helping to curtail future carbon dioxide emissions. However, we believe that energy efficiency, nuclear power and other non-fossil sources are complementary rather than competitive means to an end.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords,what is the good of the Prime Minister reaffirming the Government's commitment to energy efficiency when her Government have been cutting the resources of the Energy Efficiency Office? Do the Government now understand that energy efficiency is more cost effective and more environmentally effective than nuclear energy? Do they realise that it is no good palming us off time after time by saying that they are complementary? They are not complementary; they are competitive. Will the Government—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government now recognise that energy efficiency is essential and should be given the same resources as nuclear energy has been given in the past?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the last comments of the noble Lord. However, the Government accept that all forms of energy production and use have some environmental consequences. Energy efficiency helps to keep these to a minimum. That is one good reason among many for the Government's continuing programme of work for the Energy Efficiency Office.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not obvious that if the world becomes more prosperous —as it will need to be in order to feed its population —the demand for energy is bound to expand? Does it not follow that my noble friend is right in saying that both energy conservation and the use of every means of generating energy will become necessary?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. One of the consequences of affluence is the need for more energy. However, we can mitigate the increase of generating more power by energy conservation.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, bearing in mind the previous enthusiasm shown by the Government for nuclear energy and the tremendous problems that they have encountered over the past few days as regards the privatisation of nuclear, have they considered having urgent discussions with the French nuclear industry, which appears able to find ways of generating electricity efficiently using nuclear power but which we appear to be unable to do?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords,I belive that French nuclear energy is outside the scope of the Question
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what is being done to educate young people in the importance of energy conservation and efficiency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is an extremely interesting question and I shall bring my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe the Minister said that the Government believe that the promotion of energy efficiency is in the public interest. Is it the case that re-affirmation and exhortation are good enough? Does he not agree that if we wish to promote energy efficiency we must make those who use energy inefficiently pay a high price for it —in other words, they should be taxed for using energy inefficiently —and those who use it efficiently should gain certain benefits? Is it not time that the Government intervened more actively to promote energy efficiency instead of merely talking about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, eventually the consumer will dictate his requirements in the energy which he uses. We are encouraging the manufacturers of white goods to display how much energy is consumed by each of their products.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may press the matter a little further so that the Minister understands my question. We cannot leave the consumer to take the decision because he will take an inefficient decision. The Government must make it expensive for the consumer so that he takes an efficient decision. Does the Minister agree with that statement?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no. We believe that the Government should provide the right information. The consumer should use energy as he thinks best.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are sociological difficulties about taxing the energy wasters because many of them are poor, and to tax them could make their lives more difficult?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the consumer will be able to decide whether he wishes to pay 6·2 pence per unit for nuclear energy or 2·6 pence per unit for coal energy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that those figures are correct. However, the consumer is not given the choice when he uses energy. It is in his interests to use less energy if he can.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, if we wish to have a clean atmosphere why do we not use more natural
940
forces? We have water, tides and wind, none of which causes damage to our climate. Why cannot we concentrate on more simple methods?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an interesting point. Renewables will form part of future electricity generation but they can provide only a small proportion of the energy required.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, how can the Minister claim that the Government believe in energy efficiency when they have cut the resources for the Energy Efficiency Office?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is true to say that the reduction largely reflects the success to date of the Energy Efficiency Office programmes in raising consumer awareness.

Junior Hospital Doctors: Working Hours
3.19 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will now publish the result of their survey of the working hours of junior hospital doctors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I assume the Question refers to the Government's initiative, launched in June 1988, aimed at reducing junior hospital doctors' rotas which are more onerous than one in three. Final reports on the initiative have just been received in the department and will need to be carefully analysed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my Question concerned a report commissioned two years ago which was received in the department in August and which I hope will be published. Will the Minister give an explanation as to why there is a discrepancy between assurances given during the passage through this House of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Rea that the situation of overworked junior hospital doctors was improving and the report's finding, which the noble Baroness will see when she reads it, that five hours extra per week are worked, particularly by casualty doctors and obstetricians?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the department commissioned a research project in 1985 known as the Dowie project. The field work was carried out in 1987. We pre-empted the results of that with our June 1988 initiative and, indeed, the other pilot studies initiative which has been launched.
The results of the survey show that extremely long hours are worked in some grades and specialties with very short periods of rest at house officer level. That bears out the Government's decision to launch the 1988 initiative which, as I say, we took before any results came through. However, so far we have received an interim report and my right honourable

941
friend the Secretary of State is considering whether it is appropriate to publish it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether or not the recruitment of junior hospital doctors is improving?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that the career possibilities for junior doctors are very relevant to recruitment. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, health authorities are responsible for determining the number of consultants required to meet service needs. Their strategic plans indicate an annual increase in consultants' numbers averaging 2 per cent. per annum.
In addition, Achieving a Balance —a 10-year plan to reform hospital medical staffing —aims to improve both the quality of service and junior doctors' careers by increasing the number of consultants and by bringing the numbers in training in each specialty into line with further consultant opportunities. The Government have recently announced the creation of 100 new consultant posts in the National Health Service.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the view of the interest shown by your Lordships' House, as demonstrated by the Bill which passed through it, does the Minister not agree that that information should be made public and that it is not something which the department should keep to itself? Does she not agree that this issue concerns the public who will wish to be informed about it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise the interest in this matter, particularly in your Lordships' House. Indeed, I reiterate that the initiatives already introduced by the Government fully meet the concerns which have been expressed; that is, the June 1988 initiative and the pilot studies initiative. However, I feel sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take all considerations into account in reaching his decision.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, does my noble friend have any figures as to the comparison between teaching hospitals and the district general hospitals where junior doctors are sometimes working quite exceptionally long hours?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not without notice. However, from the evidence of the initiatives, we know that substantial progress has been made in reducing onerous rotas. We now need to consider how best to further reduce the remaining onerous rotas. I believe that that is where the pilot studies will be of particular assistance.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's agreement to sanction another 100 consultant posts is completely different from their actual appointment by health authorities which at present do not have the money to appoint those extra consultants?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not at all. I believe that in responding to the question about the potential career possibilities for junior doctors, the end number of posts available is very relevant.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the appointment of junior hospital doctors is improving?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, from the noble Lord's question I am not sure whether he is talking about the improvement of quality or numbers of junior doctors. I understand that the numbers are not increasing, and I very much hope that the quality is improving.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister indicate from the survey which she has seen that the hours of junior doctors are far longer than almost any other workers within the hospital structure?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. As I tried to say, the history of this matter goes back to 1981 to a short report by the Select Committee in another place. It was as a result of insufficient progress in that area that the Department of Health commissioned research in 1985 and is taking the additional initiatives.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness told us that the number of junior doctors is not increasing. Is it static, or is it reducing?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that it has levelled off.

Nature Conservation: Research
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will outline the arrangements to be made for commissioning and carrying out the areas of research currently co-ordinated or conducted by the Nature Conservancy Council; and receiving advice on meeting the United Kingdom's obligations under international wildlife conservation treaties and conventions, following the proposed break up of the council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government are giving detailed consideration to these matters at present. A statement will be made in due course.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather predictable reply. Will the Government take on board the importance of keeping political independence in scientific research? Can he say that the Government will be quite sure to consider that centring any such political research in a government department would make it vulnerable to political pressure? Is that one of the considerations about which the Government are thinking?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that in no way are we considering political pressure. We are well aware of our obligations and we wish them to be fulfilled. The reason we have decided to divide between Scotland, Wales and England is that there is a world of difference between Ballater and Basingstoke.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I believe that there is a misunderstanding of my supplementary question. I was not suggesting that the Government were directly putting on political pressure. I was asking the Government to consider that in the future it would be better not to have any research body centred in a government department because it would be vulnerable.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, our ambitions are merely to be more responsive. We have no desire to centre any research in a government department. Our desires are very straightforward in order to provide a more responsive approach so that both Wales and Scotland can achieve their own ambitions towards the countryside and conservation more efficiently than they do at present.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is serious concern and conflicting opinion about this matter? As a measure of that serious concern there are applications from all five major conservation bodies and all six statutory organisations, four for nature conservation and two for the countryside, to attend the meeting of the all-party conservation group at 4 o'clock today in the Moses Room. As always, Members of your Lordships' House and another place are welcome to attend.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the Minister to take advantage of the advertisement to attend such a meeting. However, I assure your Lordships' House that we are receiving comments and suggestions from many knowledgeable people and organisations and we are listening to all of them.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, after the commercial, I ask the Minister whether research into sandeels will continue after the split. If so, which part of the Nature Conservancy Council will be responsible for monitoring the research?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe it is true to say that my noble friend the Minister of State for Scotland is he who commands full respect of sandeels.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government are proceeding along this course without any consultation whatever with the people involved before arriving at a decision? Bearing in mind that over the past 10 years the Government have, in most cases, set their face quite rigidly against any form of devolution, why are they going in the opposite direction now? Is it not a fact that good judges on this subject are fearful that there may be some very damaging consequences as a result of this exercise?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said in my earlier remarks, we are responding to the differences that exist in different parts of the kingdom. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, to my earlier answer when I made it absolutely clear that we are engaged in heavy consultation and listening to those representations that are made on this matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that answer is misleading. From what the Minister said, the Government are engaged in consultations, but they are not about the decision to disband the present set-up. The consultations are on meeting the demands that the Government are making and carrying out the exercise. They are not about the decision, and I do not think that that can be classed as consultation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can respond in only two ways. First, we believe that this answers a desire both in Scotland and in Wales. Secondly, I fear that the position of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, may be at odds with the Members of his party in another place who I am told support this decision.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer a question on a specific area of research —that of the problems of the breeding of sea birds around our shores? This was previously conducted by the chief scientist's directorate of the Nature Conservancy Council. Will this kind of research be farmed out to universities? It is unlikely to be carried out in a government department, so how does the Minister see that kind of research continuing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we shall ensure that the new bodies have adequate scientific expertise. That expertise will be properly resourced because I should remind your Lordships that, under the current Government, since 1979 the Nature Conservancy Council's resources and expenditure have increased by 150 per cent. in real terms.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the responses were, which had to be in by 30th September, to the consultation paper issued by the Scottish development department? Is it the case that 48 were opposed and 26 had reservations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to admit to the noble Baroness that I do not have the responses ratio to which she referred. I will of course write to her.
Baroness White: My Lords, can it be explained why Scotland has had this consultation document and the Welsh Office has refused to issue anything?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, even if there was no consultation document any voice in Wales that wishes to be heard will be listened to, as I said earlier.

War Widows: Pensions Differential
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
How pensions paid to war widows whose husbands were killed before 1973 differ from those payable to war widows whose husbands died after that date; and what arrangements Her Majesty's Government are making to remove any such difference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security, the pension of a war widow is the same regardless of when her husband served or died. The difference between those whose husbands' service ended before the 31st March 1973 and those whose husbands' service went beyond that date is that the lattter may also receive an attributable pension from the occupational scheme of the MoD. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to widen eligibility for the occupational pension.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that there is a great deal of public opinion and concern on all sides of this House and in the other place regarding the unfairness of a situation where widows of men who were killed in the first two world wars are receiving approximately half of that which is paid to war widows whose husbands have died since 1973? If the occupational element cannot be made retrospective, why not increase the social security element in the payment so as to bring these payments closer together?
I have to ask the Minister why widows of two world wars should be penalised because their husbands were killed before the new arrangements came in? What good does that do? What comfort is that to the widows of the first two wars? I am not necessarily asking that there should be retrospective occupational payments, but I am asking for retrospective justice. As there is agreement on all sides of both Houses, I see no reason why Parliament should not deal sternly with the bureaucratic and legalistic departmental excuses for continuing this injustice.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may immediately say that all Members of your Lordships' House, and the whole of this country, are always aware of the immense and enduring debt of gratitude that we owe to those who laid down their lives during the two world wars, and indeed afterwards. In answer to the noble Baroness, the Government consider that that debt of gratitude is very adequately reflected in the preferential treatment that is given to war widows under the DSS scheme.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not difficult to reconcile what my noble friend has very properly said about gratitude with discrimination against the older widow? Is it not the fact that, if anything, the older widows' needs are greater than those of the younger ones? Does my noble friend appreciate that,
946
whatever the technicalities, although the department is responsible for the payments, public opinion finds it impossible to accept that there should be this discrimination?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this question has been examined on many previous occasions. I understand what my noble friend is saying, but the Government have an excellent record of provision for the more elderly war widows. First, the basic DSS war widows' pension is around 30 per cent. higher than that for widows on the basic state pension. Secondly, it is tax-free. Thirdly, there are special age allowances. Fourthly, those allowances are now also tax-free.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what the cost would be—presumably the decreasing cost —of bringing the pre-1973 war widows up to the level of the post-1973 war widows?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about the occupational pension scheme, the cost is thought to be in the region of £200 million. One would also have to associate it with the war disabled, which would bring it up to a further £400 million; making £600 million in all. Furthermore, if that were done, such retrospection would also have to apply to other public sectors.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, are all the 53,000 widows who at present are not receiving the occupational pension widows of men who were killed in action or who died later from wounds? If not, can the Minister say how many of them are and would it not be possible to give them the occupational pension?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not certain whether such a table of the specific kind of people the noble Lady mentions exists. If I find it does exist, I will gladly impart that knowledge to her.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the Minister will be aware from the attention with which his answers have been received that there is a considerable degree not only of sympathy, but of uncertainty regarding the position of the Government. Do the concessions that he announced already apply to the pre-1973 war widows apply also to the post-1973 war widows? If they do, is not the whole point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter —namely, the disparity between pre-1973 and post-1973 —the one that matters? I believe we are speaking for a great many people in this House, so will the Minister go back and look at this matter again? There are other ways in which concessions can be made to see whether the position of those before 1973 and those after 1973 can be reconciled. That is the point.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, but at the same time I ask the noble Lord to accept that this case has been examined in very great depth by the Govenment on many previous occasions and will continue to be examined by the Government.

947
There is no one better qualified than the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to know that in any government there are priorities and the merits of each priority have to be examined very carefully.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that successive governments have failed to have proper and comprehensive discussions with the Royal British Legion, which is a specialist body in these matters? That organisation can guide any government on the proper course that they should take. Will the Minister be prepared to take the matter back to the department for the question to be looked at?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that representations are made quite regularly by the Royal British Legion and that consultation does take place.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if the current £619 per annum of subsidy to each higher rate taxpayer were done away with by limiting tax relief on mortgage interest to the standard rate of tax, there would be plenty of revenue available for equalising war widows' pensions and for many other desirable measures as well?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I said before, I ask the noble Lord to appreciate and understand that there are many priorities. This particular priority has been looked at but, in the light of circumstances, other priorities have taken precedence.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I understand the Minister to be saying that it is a question of cost, because he also refers to priorities. I am well aware of that and that is why, in my first Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1964, I relieved many of the difficulties of war widows by easing the burden on their earnings. I regarded the problem as a top priority. If it is a question of cost, I ask the Minister whether he will look again at the situation in order to see whether there is a way of introducing a change by stages. It has been done before. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, the problem is, alas, one that will diminish as time passes. I believe that the Minister would be doing the whole House a favour if he looked at the matter again, told the Treasury to produce the arguments, and, if it is a question of cost, asked the Treasury to find some graduated scheme to meet the situation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the question that he asks. I appreciate the feelings of your Lordships' House. In the circumstances. I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the points that have been made.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, if the Government are to reconsider the position of these elderly widows, will they also please remember Members of Parliament who retired from the other place before 1964? We receive a pension that is a minute fraction of the pension received by those who retired after 1964.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that really is another question.

Business
3.43 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Electricity Privatisation (Nuclear Power). This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Scottish Electriciy Privatisation and Nuclear Power.
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that consideration of Commons Amendments to the Companies Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that, during this adjournment, a Prayer to Annul the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 will be taken.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 79).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be further considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be further considered.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 130 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
155 After Clause 104, under the heading 'Appointment and removal of auditors and related matters', insert—
Introduction
'.—(1) The following sections amend the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 relating to auditors by inserting new provisions in Chapter V of Part XI of that Act.
(2) The new provisions, together with the amendment made by section (Auditors of trade unions), replace the present provisions of that Chapter except section 389 (qualification for appointment as auditor) which is replaced by provisions in Part II of this Act.
Appointment of Auditors
.—(1) The following sections are inserted in Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (auditors)—
"Appointment of Auditors
Duty to appoint auditors
384.—(1) Every company shall appoint an auditor or auditors in accordance with this Chapter.
This is subject to section 388A (dormant company exempt from obligation to appoint auditors).
(2) Auditors shall be appointed in accordance with section 385 (appointment at general meeting at which accounts are laid), except in the case of a private company which has elected to dispense with the laying of accounts in which case the appointment shall be made in accordance with section 385A.
(3) References in this Chapter to the end of the time for appointing auditors are to the end of the time within which an appointment must be made under section 385(2) or 385A(2), according to whichever of those sections applies.
(4) Sections 385 and 385A have effect subject to section 386 under which a private company may elect to dispense with the obligation to appoint auditors annually.
Appointment at general meeting at which accounts laid.
385.—(1) This section applies to every public company and to a private company which has not elected to dispense with the laying of accounts.
(2) The company shall, at each general meeting at which accounts are laid, appoint an auditor or auditors to hold office from the conclusion of that meeting until the conclusion of the next general meeting at which accounts are laid.
(3) The first auditors of the company may be appointed by the directors at any time before the first general meeting of the company at which accounts are laid; and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the conclusion of that meeting.
(4) If the directors fail to exercise their powers under subsection (3), the powers may be exercised by the company in general meeting.
Appointment by private company which is not obliged to lay accounts.
385A.—(1) This section applies to a private company which has elected in accordance with section 253 to dispense with the laying of accounts before the company in general meeting.
(2) Auditors shall be appointed by the company in general meeting before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which copies of the company's annual accounts for the previous financial year are sent to members under section 238 or, if notice is given under section 253A(2) requiring the laying of the accounts before the company in general meeting, the conclusion of that meeting.
Auditors so appointed shall hold office from the end of that period or, as the case may be, the conclusion of that meeting until the end of the time for appointing auditors for the next financial year.
(3) The first auditors of the company may be appointed by the directors at any time before—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which copies of the company's first annual accounts are sent to members under section 238, or

(b) if notice is given under section 253A(2) requiring the laying of the accounts before the company in general meeting, the beginning of that meeting;

and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the end of that period or, as the case may be, the conclusion of that meeting.
(4) If the directors fail to exercise their powers under subsection (3), the powers may be exercised by the company in general meeting.
(5) Auditors holding office when the election is made shall, unless the company in general meet ing determines otherwise, continue to hold office until the end of the time for appointing auditors for the next financial year; and auditors holding office when an election ceases to have effect shall continue to hold office until the conclusion of the next general meeting of the company at which accounts are laid.
Election by private company to dispense with annual appointment
386.—(1) A private company may elect (by elective resolution in accordance with section 379A) to dispense with the obligation to appoint auditors annually.
(2) When such an election is in force the company's auditors shall be deemed to be re-appointed for each succeeding financial year on the expiry of the time for appointing auditors for that year, unless—

(a) a resolution has been passed under section 250 by virtue of which the company is exempt from the obligation to appoint auditors, or

(b) a resolution has been passed under section 393 to the effect that their appointment should be brought to an end.

(3) If the election ceases to be in fore the auditors then holding office shall continue to hold office—

(a) where section 385 then applies, until the conclusion of the next general meeting of the company at which accounts are laid;

(b) where section 385A then applies, until the end of the time for appointing auditors for the next financial year under that section.

(4) No account shall be taken of any loss of the opportunity of further deemed re-appointment under this section in ascertaining the amount of any compensation or damages payable to an auditor on his ceasing to hold office for any reason.
Appointment by Secretary of State in default of appointment by company
387.—(1) If in any case no auditors are appointed, re-appointed or deemed to be re-appointed before the end of the time for appointing auditors, the Secretary of State may appoint a person to fill the vacancy.
(2) In such a case the company shall within one week of the end of the time for appointing auditors give notice to the Secretary of State of his power having become exercisable.
If a company fails to give the notice required by this subsection, the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.
Filling of casual vacancies
388.—(1) The directors, or the company in general meeting, may fill a casual vacancy in the office of auditor.
(2) While such a vacancy continues, any surviving or continuing auditor or auditors may continue to act.
(3) Special notice is required for a resolution at a general meeting of a company—

(a) filling a casual vacancy in the office of auditor, or

(b) re-appointing as auditor a retiring auditor who was appointed by the directors to fill a casual vacancy.

(4) On receipt of notice of such an intended resolution the company shall forthwith send a copy of it—

(a) to the person proposed to be appointed, and

(b) if the casual vacancy was caused by the resignation of an auditor, to the auditor who resigned.

Dormant company exempt from obligation to appoint auditors.
388A.—(1) A company which by virtue of section 250 (dormant companies: exemption from provisions as to audit of accounts) is exempt from the provisions of Part VII relating to the audit of accounts is also exempt from the obligation to appoint auditors.
(2) The following provisions apply if the exemption ceases.
(3)Where section 385 applies (appointment at general meeting at which accounts are laid), the directors may appoint auditors at any time before the next meeting of the company at which accounts are to be laid; and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the conclusion of that meeting.
(4) Where section 385A applies (appointment by private company not obliged to lay accounts), the directors may appoint auditors at any time before—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which copies of the company's annual accounts are next sent to members under section 238, or

(b) if notice is given under section 253(2) requiring the laying of the accounts before the company in general meeting, the beginning of that meeting;

and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the end of that period or, as the case may be, the conclusion of that meeting.
(5) If the directors fail to exercise their powers under subsection (3) or (4), the powers may be exercised by the company in general meeting.".
(2) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), at the appropriate place insert—

"387(2)

Company failing to give Secretary of State notice of non-appointment of auditors.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.".

(3) In section 46(2) of the Banking Act 1987 (duty of auditor of authorised institution to give notice to Bank of England of certain matters) for "appointed under section 384" substitute "appointed under Chapter V of Part XI"; and in section 46(4) (adaptation of references in relation to Northern Ireland) for "sections 384," substitute "Chapter V of Part XI and sections".
Rights of auditors
.—(1) The following sections are inserted in Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (auditors)—
'Rights of auditors
Rights to information
389A.—(1) The auditors of a company have right of access at all times to the company's books, accounts and vouchers, and are entitled to require from the company's officers such information and explanations as they think necessary for the performance of their duties as auditors.
(2) An officer of a company commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly makes to the company's auditors a statement (whether written or oral) which—

(a) conveys or purports to convey any information or explanations which the auditors require, or are entitled to require, as auditors of the company, and

(b) is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.

A person guilty of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
(3) A subsidiary undertaking which is a body corporate incorporated in Great Britain, and the auditors of such an undertaking, shall give to the auditors of any parent company of the undertaking such information and explanations as they may reasonably require for the purposes of their duties as auditors of that company.
If a subsidiary undertaking fails to comply with this subsection, the undertaking and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine; and if an auditor fails without reasonable excuse to comply with this subsection he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
(4) A parent company having a subsidiary undertaking which is not a body corporate incorporated in Great Britain shall, if required by its auditors to do so, take all such steps as are reasonably open to it to obtain from the subsidiary undertaking such information and explanations as they may reasonably require for the purposes of their duties as auditors of that company.
If a parent company fails to comply with this subsection, the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
(5) Section 734 (criminal proceedings against unincorporated bodies) applies to an offence under subsection (3).'.
Right to attend company meetings, &c.
390.—(1) A company's auditors are entitled—

(a) to receive all notices of, and other communications relating to, any general meeting which a member of the company is entitled to receive;

(b) to attend any general meeting of the company; and

(c) to be heard at any general meeting which they attend on any part of the business of the meeting which concerns them as auditors.

(2) In relation to a written resolution proposed to be agreed to by a private company in accordance with section 381A, the company's auditors are entitled —

(a) to receive all such communications relating to the resolution as, by virtue of any provision of Schedule 15A, are required to be supplied to a member of the company.

(b) to give notice in accordance with section 38IC of their opinion that the resolution concerns them as auditors and should be considered by the company in general meeting or, as the case may be, by a meeting of the relevant class of members of the company,

(c) to attend any such meeting, and

(d) to be heard at any such meeting which they attend on any part of the business of the meeting which concerns them as auditors.

(3) The right to attend or be heard at a meeting is exercisable in the case of a body corporate or partnership by an individual authorised by it in writing to act as its representative at the meeting.".
(2) In section 734 of the Companies Act 1985 (criminal proceedings against unincorporated bodies), in subsection (1) (offences in relations to which the provisions apply), after "under" insert "section 389A(3) or".
(3) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences) at the appropriate place insert —

"389A(2)

Officer of company making false, misleading or deceptive statement to auditors.

1. On indictment.

2 years or a fine; or both.

2. Summary.

6 months or the statutory maximum; or both

389A(3)

Subsidiary undertaking or its auditor failing to give information to auditors of parent company.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.

389A(4)

Parent company failing to obtain from subsidiary undertaking information for purposes of audit.

Summary

one-fifth of the statutory maximum.".

(4) In Schedule 4 to the Iron and Steel Act 1982 (constitution and proceedings of publicly-owned companies that are private companies), in paragraph 3(6) (entitlement of auditors to attend and be heard at general meetings,&c.) for "387(1)" substitute "390(1)"
Remuneration of auditors
The following sections are inserted in Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (auditors)—
Remuneration of auditors
390A.—(1) The remuneration of auditors appointed by the company in general meeting shall be fixed by the company in general meeting or in such manner as the company in general meeting may determine.
(2) The remuneration of auditors appointed by the directors or the Secretary of State shall be fixed by the directors or the Secretary of State, as the case may be.
(3) There shall be stated in a note to the company's annual accounts the amount of the remuneration of the company's auditors in their capacity as such.
(4) For the purposes of this section "remuneration" includes sums paid in respect of expenses.
(5) This section applies in relation to benefits in kind as to payments in cash, and in relation to any such benefit references to its amount are to its estimated money value.
The nature of any such benefit shall also be disclosed.
Remuneration of auditors or their associates for non-audit work.
390B.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for securing the disclosure of the amount of any remuneration received or receivable by a company's auditors or their associates in respect of services other than those of auditors in their capacity as such.
(2) The regulations may —

(a) provide that "remuneration" includes sums paid in respect of expenses,

(b) apply in relation to benefits in kind as to payments in cash, and in relation to any such benefit require disclosure of its nature and its estimated money value,

(c) define "associate" in relation to an auditor,

(d) require the disclosure of remuneration in respect of services rendered to associated undertakings of the company, and

(e) define "associated undertaking" for that purpose.

(3) The regulations may require the auditors to disclose the relevant information in their report or require the relevant information to be disclosed in a note to the company's accounts and require the auditors to supply the directors of the company with such information as is necessary to enable that disclosure to be made.
(4) The regulations may make different provision for different cases.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
.—(1) The following sections are inserted in Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (auditors) —
"Removal, resignation, &c. of auditors
Removal of auditors.
391.—(1) A company may by ordinary resolution at any time remove an auditor from office, notwithstanding anything in any agreement between it and him.
(2) Where a resolution removing an auditor is passed at a general meeting of a company, the company shall within 14 days given notice of that fact in the prescribed form to the registrar.
If a company fails to give the notice required by this subsection, the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as depriving a person removed under it of compensation or damages payable to him in respect of the termination of his appointment as auditor or of any appointment terminating with that as auditor.
(4) An auditor of a company who has been removed has, notwithstanding his removal, the rights conferred by section 390 in relation to any general meeting of the company —

(a) at which his term of office would otherwise have expired, or

(b) at which it is proposed to fill the vacancy caused by his removal.

In such a case the references in that section to matters concerning the auditors as auditors shall be construed as references to matters concerning him as a former auditor.
Rights of auditors who are removed or not re-appointed.
391A.—(1) Special notice is required for a resolution at a general meeting of a company —

(a) removing an auditor before the expiration of his term of office, or

(b) appointing as auditor a person other than a retiring auditor.

(2) On receipt of notice of such an intended resolution the company shall forthwith send a copy of it to the person proposed to be removed or, as the case may be, to the person proposed to be appointed and to the retiring auditor.
(3) The auditor proposed to be removed or (as the case may be) the retiring auditor may make with respect to the intended resolution representations in writing to the company (not exceeding a reasonable length) and request their notification to members of the company.
(4) The company shall (unless the representations are received by it too late for it to do so) —

(a) in any notice of the resolution given to members of the company, state the fact of the representations having been made, and

(b) send a copy of the representations to every member of the company to whom notice of th e meeting is or has been sent.

(5) If a copy of any such representations is not sent out as required because received too late or because of the company's default, the auditor may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the representations be read out at the meeting.
(6) Copies of the representations need not be sent out and the representations need not be read at the meeting if, on the application either of the company or of any other person claiming to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter; and the court may order the company's costs on the application to be paid in whole or in part by the auditor notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application.
Resignation of auditors.
392.—(1) An auditor of a company may resign his office by depositing a notice in writing to that effect at the company's registered office.
The notice is not effective unless it is accompanied by the statement required by section 394.
(2) An effective notice of resignation operates to bring the auditor's term of office to an end as of the date on which the notice is deposited or on such later date as may be specified in it.
(3) The company shall within 14 days of the deposit of a notice of resignation send a copy of the notice to the registrar of companies.
If default is made in complying with this subsection, the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine.
Rights of resigning auditors.
392A.—(1) This section applies where an auditor's notice of resignation is accompanied by a statement of circumstances which he considers should be brought to the attention of members or creditors of the company.
(2) He may deposit with the notice a signed requisition calling on the directors of the company forthwith duly to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the company for the purpose of receiving and considering such explanation of the circumstances connected with his resignation as he may wish to place before the meeting.
(3) He may request the company to circulate to its members—

(a) before the meeting convened on his requisition, or

955

(b) before any general meeting to which his term of office would otherwise have expired or at which it is proposed to fill the vacancy caused by his resignation,

a statement in writing (not exceeding a reasonable length) of the circumstances connected with his resignation.
(4) The company shall (unless the statement is received too late for it to comply)—

(a) in any notice of the meeting given to members of the company, state the fact of the statement having been made, and

(b) send a copy of the statement to every member of the company to whom notice of the meeting is or has been sent.

(5) If the directors do not within 21 days from the date of the deposit of a requisition under this section proceed duly to convene a meeting for a day not more than 28 days after the date on which the notice convening the meeting is given, every director who failed to take all reasonable steps so secure that a meeting was convened as mentioned above is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
(6) If a copy of the statement mentioned above is not sent out as required because received too late or because of the company's default, the auditor may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the statement be read out at the meeting.
(7) Copies of a statement need not be sent out and the statement need not be read out at the meeting if, on the application either of the company or of any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter; and the court may order the company's costs on such an application to be paid in whole or in part by the auditor, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application.
(8) An auditor who has resigned has, notwithstanding his resignation, the rights conferred by section 390 in relation to any such general meeting of the company as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b).
In such a case the references in that section to matters concerning the auditors as auditors shall be construed as references to matters concerning him as a former auditor.
Temination of appointment of auditors not appointed annually.
393.—(1) When an election is in force under section 386 (election by private company to dispense with annual appointment), any member of the company may deposit notice in writing at the company's registered office proposing that the appointment of the company's auditors be brought to an end.
No member may deposit more than one such notice in any financial year of the company.
(2) If such a notice is deposited it is the duty of the directors —

(a) to convene a general meeting of the company for a date not more than 28 days after the date on which the notice was given, and

(b) to propose at the meeting a resolution in a form enabling the company to decide whether the appointment of the company's auditors should be brought to an end.

(3) If the decision of the company at the meeting is that the appointment of the auditors should be brought to an end, the auditors shall not be deemed to be re-appointed when next they would be and, if the notice was deposited within the period immediately following the distribution of accounts, any deemed re-appointment for the financial year following that to which those accounts relate which has already occurred shall cease to have effect.
The period immediately following the distribution of accounts means the period beginning with the day on which copies of the company's annual accounts are sent
to members of the company under section 238 and ending 14 days after that day.
(4) If the directors do not within 14 days from the date of the deposit of the notice proceed duly to convene a meeting, the member who deposited the notice (or, if there was more than one, any of them) may himself convene the meeting; but any meeting so convened shall not be held after the expiration of three months from that date.
(5) A meeting convened under this section by a member shall be convened in the same manner, as nearly as possible, as that in which meetings are to be convened by directors.
(6) Any reasonable expenses incurred by a member by reason of the failure of the directors duly to convene a meeting shall be made good to him by the company; and any such sums shall be recouped by the company from such of the directors as were in default out of any sums payable, or to become payable, by the company by way of fees or other remuneration in respect of their services.
(7) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in any agreement between the company and its auditors; and no compensation or damages shall be payable by reason of the auditors' appointment being terminated under this section.".
(2) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), at the appropriate place insert —

"391(2)

Failing to give notice to registrar of removal of auditor.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.

One-fiftieth of the statutory maximum.

392(3)

Company failing to forward notice of auditor's resignation to registrar.

1. On indictment.

A fine.

2. Summary.

The statutory maximum.

One-tenth of the statutory maximum.

392A(5)

Directors failing to convene meeting requisitioned by resigning auditor.

1. On indictment.

A fine.

2. Summary.

The statutory maximum.".

.—(1) The following section is inserted in Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (auditors) —
Statement by person ceasing to hold office as auditor.
"Statement by person ceasing to hold office as auditor.
394.—(1) Where an auditor ceases for any reason to hold office, he shall deposit at the company's registered office a statement of any circumstances connected with his ceasing to hold office which he considers should be brought to the attention of the members or creditors of the company or, if he considers that there are no such circumstances, a statement that there are none.
(2) In the case of resignation, the statement shall be deposited along with the notice of resignation; in the case of failure to seek re-appointment, the statement shall be deposited not less than 14 days before the end of the time allowed for next appointing auditors; in any other case, the statement shall be deposited not later than the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which he ceases to hold office.
(3) If the statement is of circumstances which the auditor considers should be brought to the attention of the members or creditors of the company, the company shall within 14 days of the deposit of the statement either—

(a) send a copy of it to every person who under section 238 is entitled to be sent copies of the accounts, or

(b) apply to the court.

(4) The company shall if it applies to the court notify the auditor of the application.
(5) Unless the auditor receives notice of such an application before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he deposited the statement, he shall within a further seven days send a copy of the statement to the registrar.
(6) If the court is satisfied that the auditor is using the statement to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter —

957

(a) it shall direct that copies of the statement need not be sent out, and

(b) it may further order the company's costs on the application to be paid in whole or in part by the auditor, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application;

and the company shall wihtin 14 days of the court's decision send to the persons mentioned in subsection (3)(a) a statement setting out the effect of the order.
(7) If the court is not so satisfied, the company shall within 14 days of the court's decision—

(a) send copies of the statement to the persons mentioned in subsection (3)(a), and

(b) notify the auditor of the court's decision;

and the auditor shall within seven days of receiving such notice send a copy of the statement to the registrar.
Offences of failing to comply with s. 394.
394A.—(1) If a person ceasing to hold office as auditor fails to comply with section 394 he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (I) it is a defence for the person charged to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(3) Sections 733 (liability of individuals for corporate default) and 734 (criminal proceedings against unincorporated bodies) apply to an offence under subsection (1).
(4) If a company makes default in complying with section 394, the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.".
(2) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), at the appropriate placeinsert—

"394A(1)

Person ceasing to hold office as auditor failing to deposit statement as to circumstances

1. On indictment.

A fine.

2. Summary.

The statutory maximum.

394A(4)

Company failing to comply with requirements as to statement of person ceasing to hold office as auditor

1. On indictment.

A fine.

2. Summary.

The statutory maximum.

One-tenth of the statutory maximum."

(3) In section 733 of the Companies Act 1985 (liability of individuals for corporate default), in subsection (1) (offences in relation to which provisions apply) after "216(3)" insert ",394A(1)".
(4) In section 734 of the Companies Act 1985 (criminal proceedings against unincorporated bodies), in subsection (1) (offences in relation to which the provisions apply), after "under" insert "section 394(1) or".
(5) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (unregistered companies), in the entry for sections 384 to 393, for "393" substitute "394A".
Auditors of trade unions and employers' associations.
In section 11 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 (duties of trade unions and employers' associations as to auditors, &c.), after subsection (8) insert—
"(9) Where a trade union or employers' association to which this section applies is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985—

(a) subsection (3) above, and the provisions of paragraphs 6 to 15 of Schedule 2 to this Act, do not apply, and

(b) the rights and powers conferred, and duties imposed, by paragraphs 16 to 21 of that Schedule belong to the auditors of the company appointed under Chapter V of Part XI of that Act.".

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
958
Amendment No. 155. I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 175.
The major amendment, No. 15.5, is, as your Lordships will see, extensive, but its practical effect is not as great as one might think. The amendment largely reproduces, without substantive changes but with a little reordering and tidying up, most of the present Chapter V of Part XI of the 1985 Companies Act, which deals with auditors. There are really only three changes of significance.
First, the amendment permits private companies, making use of the elective regime which your Lordships agreed to insert into the Bill, to elect out of the requirement of the Companies Act to appoint auditors annually. Secondly, the amendment makes certain changes to the auditors' provisions in the 1985 Act which are consequential to the Bill's provisions on the elective regime and eligibility for appointment as a company auditor. Thirdly, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the disclosure of the fees auditors or their associates receive from a company they audit in respect of services other than auditing.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 155
155A Page 49 of the Commons Amendments, line 12 leave out ("are entitled to") and insert ("may").
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, l beg to move Amendment No. 155A. In introducing Amendment No. 155, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rightly repeated, and to a certain extent reordered, some of the provisions in the 1985 Act. We accept that. However, in reordering the provisions we open up the possibility of further debate on whether the provisions of the 1985 Act themselves should not be brought further up to date in the Bill that we now have before us.
I speak to my amendment and to Commons Amendments Nos. 155 and 175. The object of my amendment is to explore with the Government whether it would not be sensible to reinforce the powers of auditors to require information. The new Section 389A of the Commons amendment states:
"The auditors of a company have right of access at all times … and are entitled to require from the company's officers such information".
It is the expression "are entitled to" that I find a little difficult to understand and I should like to be certain that it gives the auditors the essential powers required. The amendment that I propose provides that auditors have a right to require from the company's officers such information and explanation as they think necessary for the performance of their duties. I believe that to be a sensible method of expressing what auditors can do.
I turn from the specific amendment to the generality of Amendment No. 155. There are one or two questions that I wish to put to the noble Lord by way of seeking information rather than of objection. I fully understand that it is necessary to

959
rewrite the Companies Act 1985 to take account of the new elective regime relating to small companies.
I refer your Lordships to page 52 of the Commons amendments, which is part of a long amendment that covers several pages. New Section 391 refers to the removal of auditors. As I said before, this gives us an opportunity to look at the provision and to see whether it is sensible and right to keep it within the companies legislation. New Section 391 states:
"A company may by ordinary resolution at any time remove an auditor from office, notwithstanding anything in any agreement between it and him".
The removal of an auditor is a very dramatic event. I am simply wondering and questioning the noble Lord as to whether the Government have got it right in leaving it to be done by ordinary resolution rather than by something fiercer in the form of a special resolution. I assume that the company must have a general meeting in order to remove the auditor, because, as I understand it—the noble Lord will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—the ordinary resolution is an ordinary resolution in a general meeting rather than a ordinary resolution of the board. The company as such must have a general meeting to pass that resolution. If that is so, I do not quite understand why subsection (2) refers to,
"a general meeting of a company",
because subsection (2) implies that the removal of the auditor could be achieved in some other manner. Can the noble Lord enlighten me on that point?
Moving on in this long amendment after Clause 104, we come to the statement by a person ceasing to hold office as an auditor. The statement has to be deposited by the auditor at the company's registered office when for any reason he ceases to hold office. In other words, if he is sacked by ordinary resolution of the company, he must deposit a statement,
"of any circumstances connected with his ceasing to hold office which he considers should be brought to the attention of the members or creditors of the company or, if he considers that there are no such circumstances, a statement that there are none".
We discussed this point when the Bill was before the House prior to going to another place. It is slightly odd that an auditor, who is relieved of his contract as a result of an ordinary resolution in a general meeting of a company at which presumably all the issues are explained, must then produce a statement saying that there are no such circumstances which he thinks he ought to bring to the attention of the shareholders or the creditors.
Those are the points arising on Amendment No. 155. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could consider carefully what I have said about Amendment No. 155A. On our side of the House we wish the auditors to have as much power as possible to require from the officers of the company the information that they need. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 155A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 155, be agreed to.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the charming way in which, in a brief speech—I congratulate him too on his brevity—he disposed of an amendment
960
of 13 pages. I feel that I should start some period of exploration in regard to this splendid 13 page amendment which covers, as the noble Lord said, seven new clauses. Do the new clauses in any way cover the position of small and medium sized companies? I hope that he can help me on that one point. I intended to raise an issue arising from new Section 391 on page 52 of the Marshalled List of Commons Amendments. However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his competent manner, has saved me having to say anything further about that.
The Minister said that seven new clauses are to be found in this long amendment. The seven new clauses will, I suppose, replace a certain number of sections in the Companies Act 1985. In their amendments the Government have removed sometimes as many as 30 or 40 sections from the 1985 Act. They have then inserted a number of clauses, usually using far more words than were contained in the sections they have removed. They then ask us as a revising Chamber to accept those new wordings which are sometimes totally different from the original wordings in the 1985 Act. They have in effect amended a large number of sections. As a cautious lawyer, if somebody tells me that he will rewrite a section in different words but that it means the same thing I somewhat doubt whether that is always possible. It leads to tremendous confusion.
The Government are taking out "X" sections and inserting "Y" sections. They are then saying that the theme of the"X" sections equals the theme of the "Y" sections. In effect they are saying that the law as stated in the inserted "Y" sections is the same as the law as expounded in the "X" sections taken out. But their wording in the "X" sections is different. We are asked as a revising Chamber to take the say so of the Government that they can change the wording of sections, put them back and then maintain that they are the same in law as the earlier sections.
I have been trying to follow this argument. I wish to ask the Minister some specific questions. Several of the new clauses deal with punishment of offences. At the bottom of page 48 of the Marshalled List of Commons Amendments we see the words:
"In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences) at the appropriate place insert".
The punishment is then set out. Is the punishment set out there the same as the punishment in the old provision? If it is not the same punishment, why is it not the same punishment? In other words, are there any changes there?
The new clauses are so long that it is sometimes difficult to understand where they start and where they end. On page 50 under paragraph (3) we see the words:
"In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences) at the appropriate place insert".
There follow certain punishments. I could continue in this way for some time. There are two other such provisions. The first is to be found at the bottom of page 55 and the top of page 56, the second on page 57. The noble Lord may say that the punishments are the same in all cases, although they are set out in different words. On what basis can he tell the

961
House—I am sure that he can, with all his charm and experience in the matter—that if a number of sections are removed and different words inserted the law in the new clauses will be the same as the law in the old sections? This is not semantics; it is a very serious matter. If the Government are proposing to take that kind of line and in effect to amend a huge section of the Bill without explaining why they are making such amendments, that is a policy that I should think requires further consideration by this House.
4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must say that I was a little surprised to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. Rather than the auditors being entitled to require certain information and explanations from the company's officers, the noble Lord would have the Commons Amendment No. 155 read that the auditors may require such information and explanations.
I am not sure that it is right at this stage of the Bill's proceedings to be sensibly looking at such drafting points. It is all the more exasperating because there is nothing new in the provision in question as contained in the Commons amendment. I refer your Lordships to new Section 237(1) of the Companies Act 1985 contained in Clause 9 on page 16 of the Bill as it left this House. That subsection is reproduced exactly as new Section 384(3) of Commons Amendment No. 155.
The Commons amendment brings together various provisions relating to auditors which are contained in the Bill and in the Companies Act. As I mentioned, the substantive changes it makes are few. If the noble Lord had raised this point on Clause 9 at an earlier stage of the proceedings. I might have seen the merit of discussing the alternative wording. However, I think I would have concluded that I preferred the expression "entitled to". Incidentally, that is the wording which practitioners are used to. It is contained in the present Section 237 of the Companies Act. I do not believe that such an amendment put forward at this stage of the Bill's proceedings merits the degree of attention suggested.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The fairly minor changes I mentioned would have required extensive amendment to the auditors chapter of the Companies Act. We concluded that it would be better to replace the chapter rather than make a large series of opaque textual amendments to existing provisions.
We found it convenient to reorder some of the provisions so that, for example, the rights of auditors on removal from office follow the provisions of how auditors may be removed. We have also made a few drafting changes to existing provisions and incorporated into the amended chapter some of the other provisions affecting auditors which are at present scattered around the Bill and the Companies Act.
I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be helpful to users to have all the provisions on the
962
appointment and removal of auditors and their rights in one place. The amendments were introduced and discussed in Committee in another place.
In answer specifically to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about the level of offences, I can confirm that these remain the same. However, we found it necessary to change some of the references because other amendments renumber the main provisions. I wish to emphasise the point that we are largely restating existing legislation in these amendments. I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord is saying: the Government are trying to restate what is in existing legislation. But restating it, as I pointed out, allows us to discuss it. If they had kept to the original wording and not bothered with any of the Commons amendments, we would not have had a chance to discuss the matter. It is the noble Lord's own fault if he receives such amendments from this side of the Chamber on matters which have already been before this House. I believe that the expression "may require" allows auditors much stronger powers than "entitled to require". I say that because to be entitled to do something does not necessarily achieve success. If the noble Lord is saying that he is not prepared at this stage to consider amendments of any kind whatever, we might as well be talking in a vacuum. However, if that is his view, either we divide on the issue or we let the matter go.
It is the privilege of this House to be a revising Chamber. I understood that the object of revising legislation was to ensure that it left this House in a better form than was the case when it arrived here. The noble Lord seems to disagree with me on that point. I shall not press the amendment to a Division because I do not feel strongly enough about the wording. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be some give from the Government when we put forward what we think are valid points and that we will not come up against a simple brick wall.
I also hope that when Government Ministers come to respond to amendments they will answer the questions which have been put to them. I do not believe that the noble Lord has answered all the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Moreover, I do not believe that he has answered the point I made. As I said, I shall not press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 155A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 155, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 155 agreed to.

Electricity Privatisation: Nuclear Power
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend

963
the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is as follows.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation and nuclear power.
"The Government remain determined to complete electricity privatisation, with all the benefits it will bring, in the lifetime of this Parliament. The preparations for the new system have brought issues into the open. In particular, attention has been focused on the costs of nuclear power. The Government have for some time recognised that our nuclear power is more costly than power from fossil-fuelled generating stations. Nevertheless it has an important role to play in providing diversity of supply and in protecting the environment.
"My predecessor told the House on 24th July that the improved transparency brought about by the preparations for privatisation had revealed substantially increased costs, relating primarily to the Magnox stations. This led us to the conclusion that the Magnox stations should remain under government control. Contract negotiations for nuclear stations have moved on since July. Discussions have taken place about financing new nuclear power stations. The Government told the House on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill that the arrangements for nuclear power would strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the taxpayer, the electricity consumer and the shareholder. In the event, unprecedented guarantees were being sought. I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way.
"Given these factors, the Government have concluded that the English AGRs and Sizewell B should remain, along with the Magnox stations, in a government-owned company. This company will inherit all the nuclear-related assets, expertise and support currently residing in the CEGB, including the CEGB's rightly praised expertise in health and safety. Safety will continue to be paramount. Standards will be maintained at their present high level.
"I am happy to announce that Mr. John Collier, Chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, has agreed to become chairman of the new nuclear company. He brings to this vital task a wealth of experience in the nuclear industry and well-recognised leadership qualities. The company will be a substantial one, with a positive cash flow. It could provide between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of electricity supplied in the mid-90s. The company will retain the ability to construct and operate new nuclear capacity. It will not own any fossil generating stations. Thus the prospects for fossil generators will remain essentially unaffected.
"The CEGB's other power stations will be allocated between National Power and Power Gen as previously announced. Both companies will be major fossil-based generators, and will be privatised this Parliament as will the distribution companies.
964
"We want to preserve the strategic role of nuclear power in order to maintain adequate diversity of electricity supply, avoid too great a reliance on a single fuel and obtain the benefits of this environmentally clean source of energy. As a result of privatisation, there will be competition in the electricity market which is likely of itself to lead to greater fuel diversity. There are already a number of proposals for new generating projects based on combined cycle gas turbine technology, which of course leads to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Oil-fired stations have a role to play.
"In the light of their performance to date, it should be possible, subject to the views of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, for the lifetime of at least some of the Magnox stations to be extended. The Government will make available the funds for any justifiable investment for this purpose.
"In view of the factors I have mentioned bearing on diversity, some of which relate to fossil fuels, the non-fossil obligation will be set at a level which can be satisfied without the construction of new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B. The Government attach the highest importance to the successful completion and operation of Sizewell B in order to maintain the PWR option in the United Kingdom.
"I am asking the CEGB to consider urgently what action it wishes to take with respect to its applications for my consent to build PWR stations at Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C. The Government's Statement is being communicated to the Hinkley Point C inquiry.
"There will continue to be the opportunity, as has been made clear previously, for other non-fossil generation to contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation. In particular, we will maintain the arrangements for the 600mw special tranche for renewables announced by my right honourable friend during the summer.
"My proposals will not have an impact on the electricity industry's carbon dioxide emissions until about the turn of the century. By then we fully expect gas-fired stations to be playing an important role in electricity generation, and by maintaining the nuclear option we are creating the opportunity for a longer term contribution from economic nuclear power.
"The distribution companies need to be clear what their obligations will be for a reasonable period ahead. The Government will wish to review the prospects for nuclear power as the Sizewell B project nears completion in 1994.
"The nuclear company has a long-term future as a supplier of nuclear-generated electricity. This should provide continuing attractive employment opportunities. The pension rights of existing staff will be protected, as will their ability to benefit from the sale of the rest of the industry. I shall be discussing the implementation of these proposals with all parties concerned, including the trade unions.
"The price of the nuclear company's electricity will be set at a level consistent with its earning a

965
return appropriate to public sector bodies. Since the price of nuclear electricity is likely still to be somewhat higher than that of fossil-fuelled electricity, the fossil fuel levy will be used to share the additional cost over all electricity suppliers.
"This decision will help preserve diversity of supply and maintain the nuclear option. We will complete electricity privatisation in the lifetime of this Parliament, and in so doing will safeguard the interests of consumers, taxpayers and shareholders alike."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement made in another place. The House will also, I am sure, sympathise with the noble Lord the Leader of the House on having to read out a Statement which represents a complete mess. The whole privatisation programme has come to what must be its final stage. It should be scrapped.
Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that in July we debated that issue in the House and that the Government deployed many arguments to explain why the nuclear sector should be privatised within National Power? Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the Government won a Division on that matter, and now the Government have to come back and admit that they were wrong? What has happened? Have they now had new ideas, or have they simply thought it through a little more carefully than they did in the summer?
On the specifics of the Statement, I have to say that it raises a myriad of questions. Let me take some of them. I cannot take them all because there are far too many. Let me ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House some questions. How will the fossil fuel levy work now? It was, after all, designed to ensure that nuclear power could be ring-fenced, would not compete with other power sources and would be subsidised by fossil fuel. Since the nuclear sector will remain under public ownership, how will that work?
Why is nuclear power to be, in the words of the Statement more expensive than fossil fuel generated power? The price is still likely to be somewhat higher. Why? On a marginal cost basis, which is what the grid operates off now, nuclear power is substantially lower in cost than fossil fuel. What extra elements are there? Is one the provision for de-commissioning that has to be built in to achieve that extraordinary statement? Why will the grid, presuming that it will, continue to operate on a price merit order rather than a cost merit order? Will that not change the whole basis of the grid's operations? Why should the Government continue with Sizewell B? What is the point of spending more than a billion pounds, given the cost over-runs, on Sizewell B, when we know from what the Government have said that they will ask the CEGB not to go ahead with Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C? Does one PWR maintain the PWR option in this country? That is a ludicrous statement.
966
The Government also seem to doubt whether it is possible to float National Power with the nuclear sector in it. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I made chat point on Second Reading of the Electricity Bill when it came before your Lordships. The point was not accepted by the Government then; it has been accepted today. Now that it has been accepted, why does the division between National Power and Power Gen have to be the same as it was before? The whole point of giving 70 per cent. of the market to National Power was to ensure that it could carry the nuclear sector, which is known to be unprofitable. If we take out nuclear, why should National Power have 70 per cent.? Why should not others come in? Why should not the nuclear company also go in for fossil-fuel stations? I thought that the Government wanted to encourage competition. Why should not the public sector compete with the private sector on reasonable terms?
I could go on. There are thousands of questions; but it is pointless to go on with this rubbish. To be absolutely honest, it is the longest running farce since Sir Brian Rix left the Whitehall Theatre. It would be funny if it were not so absolutely pathetic. I wish that the Government would now come to the only logical conclusion and say that they must start again from scratch and stop this privatisation business, and let us get on with running the electricity business in the way that it should be run.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has read to us a most important Statement made in another place. We spent many days debating the Electricity Bill in this place. We are now confronted with the situation in which the whole nature of that Bill has been fundamentally altered. At the start, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who, in a sense, is the guardian of the Constitution so far as we are concerned, whether or not he thinks that a constitutional issue arises. We have, after all, spent a long time debating a Bill on the basis of certain clearly defined principles. The principle of the Bill was that the whole electricity industry would be sold to the private sector. We are now told that the Government have reached a decision that we should have a combination of private and public ownership and that the whole of the nuclear side, something for which we pressed at the time, should now be taken away.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has rightly pointed out, not only does that fundamentally alter the nature of the Bill which we spent so many days debating, but it raises the whole issue of the structure of the privatised electricity segment. The reason National Power was given 70 per cent. of the generating capacity and the other company was given only 30 per cent. was so that National Power could accommodate the nuclear segment. That was made very clear.
Now that the nuclear segement is to be removed, there is no reason any longer for that dominant position of National Power in relation to Power Gen. In fact, there is every reason now to subdivide the CEGB into many more parts—four, five or six—in order to enable real competition to take place. That

967
is what the Government have always said was their intention.
I think that we are faced today with a situation that is about as fundamental as any we have had in recent years. We have spent a long time on the Bill and now its whole nature has been fundamentally changed. I should like the noble Lord the Leader of the House to indicate to us whether, in the light of this major decision which the Government have reached after the passage of the Bill, they will consider at the very least altering the proposed structure for the power stations in England so as to enable more competition to take place in the privately owned sector. Will they also contemplate quite seriously bringing the whole project back to this House so that we can consider it on the basis of the new premises?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their responses to the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, began with a fundamental criticism of it. I would only say to him and to your Lordships that these proposals will have the advantage of ensuring that electricity privatisation is completed during this Parliament. We believe that consumers will benefit from competition. As the Statement which I read out made clear, it is a fact that many of the costs of the nuclear industry have only begun to emerge as the preparation for privatisation has continued. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, shakes his head. Perhaps he will forgive me. I very rarely venture to criticise him, but there is just an element of complacency on the other side of the House.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fact that under nationalisation costs can remain hidden which have now begun to emerge is something which I believe is not satisfactory. Although I am disappointed in the Statement I made today, I take considerable comfort from the fact that at least we now know that costs that were hidden have begun to emerge. We have therefore taken a straightforward decision which we have come immediately to both Houses to announce.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will ask a question in a moment. Perhaps I may briefly say, yes, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is absolutely right in saying that the House debated at considerable length the noble Earl's important amendment. I give the answer unreservedly to the noble Earl that on that occasion he was—as he so often is—entirely right.
However, I ask your Lordships to consider this. The Statement makes quite clear that subsequent to the debate on the noble Earl's amendment, since the end of July the contract negotiations have begun to demonstrate that what the Central Electricity Generating Board has had to do as regards its AGRs and the future PWR stations is to make unprecedented demands on both costs and on government underwriting if it is to go to the market.
I say quite seriously to your Lordships that the Government have tried to take the greatest care over this aspect of privatisation. We have finally come to
968
the conclusion which the noble Earl urged on us towards the end of July. Once again I say that I believe it has been good that the preparation for privatisation has made transparent many costs which would otherwise have been hidden.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me a direct question: how would the levy work? I shall give the noble Lord a direct answer. It will work exactly as it was intended to work previously. Nuclear power is still likely to be higher than fossil power. The levy will identify the extra costs borne by the public electricity suppliers and ensure that they are fairly shared out. The noble Lord is very knowledgeable about these subjects and he was absolutely right that one of the matters which makes the nuclear costs high—I am sure there are others—is the back-end costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me: why on earth continue with Sizewell B? The answer is very simple but it is important. It is vital that we continue to maintain the nuclear option. We are absolutely committed to maintaining it. In addition, it is relevant that nearly half the cost of Sizewell B has already been incurred.
Both noble Lords asked: what about the split between National Power and Power Gen? The Bill has always provided for the entry into the industry of more generators. The Statement I repeated makes quite clear that the generators are waiting. Noble Lords look doubtful, but the Statement I repeated makes quite clear that the generators are keen to come in. If that is the case as regards presumably the very small generators, I do not believe that it will be in any way impossible to have the two main generators—National Power and Power Gen—with their respective allocations of percentages of the fossil generating capacity.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he felt there was a constitutional issue. With great respect to him, I do not think that there is. What I have repeated today requires no legislation. The fact of the matter is that the parent Act provides for the CEGB functions to be split between different companies, of which the new nuclear company will be one. Therefore, while listening with interest to the noble Lord, I do not agree with the point he made.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the very gracious terms in which he referred to my amendment. I was of course in league with the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Ezra. We all three put our names to it, together with the noble Lord on my left in this Chamber and on the right in politics, but who is not here this afternoon.
It is perfectly true that I gave to Cecil Parkinson before he drafted the Bill advice which was based on intuitive knowledge of what I was talking about. I wish to explain to your Lordships, in order that we do not get across one another, that there would not be any nuclear power in the world if we had not started projects without first seeing the end of the road. For a long time the question of what we would do with high level waste was in debate. We now

969
know that the French have solved it, and the Swedes have solved it. We know that we can do it.
Nobody has ever yet successfully concluded the decommissioning of a station. We have made a start at Chapel Cross, but Torness was built for a life of 30 years at 100 per cent. load factor. Of course it will not achieve that. At 75 per cent. load factor it will have a life of 40 years. How on earth can one ask the City to guess what a major undertaking will cost 40 years hence? It is a perfectly impossible proposition. It always was from the beginning. What the negotiations have shown is what I knew intuitively to be right and is confirmed by the accountants. Without wishing to appear to gloat, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his complimentary remarks on my having been right, and I resume my seat.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I do not renege on what I said before. The noble Earl is generally right and he was right on that occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, may wish to talk further to me about it but I am sure he will accept that when I said we had taken great care in looking at the nuclear option so far as concerns privatisation, I was speaking the truth. There is a wealth of evidence over the years which I have to say did not lead the Government to the conclusion that unprecedented guarantees would be asked for at the last moment by National Power. It felt it had to make these requests. I make no criticism but simply state that as a matter of fact.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the economics of building, operating and decommissioning nuclear power stations have from the outset, and continuing right up through the past 30 years, been fraught with uncertainties? In view of the forbidding new cost factors which have now come to light and to which my noble friend refers, should not the Government be congratulated on their sense of realism in the decision which they have taken? Is it not rather strange that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches should, instead of rejoicing at the decision, complain that the Government have decided not to do what they always said should not be done?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I said earlier that I thought one of the benefits of this decision—I say this of course from this side of the House—is that we can proceed more smoothly towards privatisation. But perhaps it is more to the taste of noble Lords on the other side of the House if I respond to my noble friend by saying that another of the benefits is that the consumer will benefit. The consumer will no longer have to pay the costs which would have arisen from financing nuclear power in the private sector. That will also benefit the taxpayer.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, inasmuch as I spent the majority of my Second Reading speech in appealing to the Government and giving the reasons why
970
nuclear generation should be excluded from a Bill if we were compelled to have a Bill on the privatisation of electricity, it will naturally follow that I can do no other than congratulate the Government on the Statement which they have belatedly made. However, they refused to accept that view and made that very clear from the beginning. All of us debated this Bill on the basis that there would be complete privatisation, including nuclear generation.
The whole of the legislation has now been altered. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House as Leader whether he is proposing to recommit the whole legislation so that this myriad of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, correctly referred to can be discussed and explained by the Government in terms of the form their policy will take. If the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not prepared to do that, is he at least prepared to bring forward some statement that can be debated fully, not for one afternoon but for the inevitable days of debate that will take place on what constitutes a new piece of legislation?
Having regard to my little knowledge of the rules of another place, I am astonished that such a thing will be permitted in another place, as this measure is such a total contradiction of the objectives of the legislation as they were originally laid out. The first question I wish to ask the noble Lord is whether arrangements will be made so that all 1 he questions can be covered—that would take a whole day to set out—and answers and explanations given.
Secondly, will the noble Lord explain now, in the light of the change of circumstances, what the Government's policy is with regard to nuclear generation? The Statement gives us no hope at all. It is written in very general terms. The phrase "keeping options open' does not tell us what is going to happen. The phrase "re-examining in the years ahead", does not tell us what is going to happen. What is the present Government's policy in the light of these new circumstances with regard to nuclear generation?
What are the arrangements for costs? Are the distributing companies going to be compelled to take electricity generated in this way, no matter what the cost is? All that is revealed in the Statement is that the Government will add on what they consider essential, and that cost will be passed on. Is that what the Government now have in mind? I wanted to ask whether that is what the legislation will provide, but one is in the totally absurd situation of not knowing what the law is going to be in view of this fundamental change of approach of the Government.
What will be the rights of the watchdog which was set up? Will he have powers to examine the costs of nuclear generation in the same way as he had before when it was to be privatised? Will he have the same rights to make comments and reports with regard to publicly-owned nuclear generation and the price at which that is being passed on to distributors and through them to consumers? There is a myriad of questions that one could ask and it is quite hopeless to attempt to cover them. Therefore, I shall leave it at that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I am a little surprised that he has returned to what he calls a constitutional point. As he claimed, it is absolutely the case that he made a significant speech on the Second Reading of the legislation in which he referred in terms to this matter. The noble Lord referred to it in the terms of what has now happened. It is a little strange therefore for him at the beginning of the legislation, and other noble Lords as the legislation was going through, to say that nuclear generation should be taken out of the privatisation, and yet when the Government finally come to the House and say quite openly and honestly to your Lordships that that is what they intend to do and give the reasons why, he then turns round and says that that raises a great constitutional issue. If I may say so, it does not raise a great constitutional issue. The Government's decision responds to what the noble Lord himself called for. Further, if I may say so, this side of the House believes it contributes to the public good, along with the privatisation of fossil fuel generation. Finally, as I explained earlier but shall now repeat, the decision I have announced today does not raise the minutiae of a constitutional issue because it requires no primary legislation.
The noble Lord also asked me about the Government's policy on nuclear generation. It is simply to finish Sizewell B in order to keep the nuclear option open and to review the position on nuclear generation in the light of progress on Sizewell. However, the Statement makes it clear that we continue to believe in the importance of nuclear generation. Incidentally, let us not forget that when Sizewell comes on stream it will produce more than one-third of what all the Magnox stations together produce today.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about costs. I quite understand why he asked that question. Under this wholly government owned company, prices will be a matter for commercial negotiation between the distributing companies and the new nuclear company. However, the Government will require the nuclear company to earn a return appropriate to public sector industries.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who took part in the legislation now wish to congratulate the Government on having seen the light and shown the courage to respond to that vision? There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth. This decision is better late than never. Having said that, I also wish to congratulate my noble friend on the Government's choice of Mr. Collier to head up the new company. It is difficult to think of a better choice. However, that raises other questions that I wish to allude to. Will my noble friend say a little more about the proposed structure of the company? Will he, if not now, on a later occasion when he has time to brief himself on the minutiae, take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the working of the grid and the merit order and whether it must now to some extent at least reflect costs as well as price?
Finally, will the handling of nuclear power by a government-controlled company lead the
972
Government to review recent decisions cutting back research on the fast reactors?
There are other questions which one could ask, but now is not the time. I support the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in hoping that in the new Session we can have a debate on the whole issue.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. A debate is a matter for the usual channels.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Earl of Lauderdale for what he has said. He was characteristically generous and I was particularly glad that he was generous about the announcement of the appointment of Mr. Collier. The board of the new company will be a matter for discussion with the new chairman.
I hear what my noble friend said regarding R&D. I am advised that the operation of the merit order will not be affected by the decisions announced today. The stations with the lowest operating costs will be run first.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's Statement and thank him for it. However, does it not show that the Government launched their privatisation programme with undue haste and a complete lack of preparation? Are they not to be condemned for that fact? Should they not have understood exactly what electricity privatisation meant, gone into the full costs and come forward with a properly prepared Bill?
Is it not even worse than that? Is it not the case that over the past few decades the Government and the department have been either fooled or lied to by those in charge of our nuclear power programme, or that there has been collusion? There has been collusion between the CEGB, the Department of Energy and private industry to foist upon this country a system of generation which is far dearer than conventional electricity and which carries dangers which other forms of generation do not.
Are the House and the electorate not entitled to have a full public inquiry into what has gone on in the nuclear industry over the past 20 to 25 years, irrespective of which government has been in power? Do not the figures which have recently been published, showing that the cost of nuclear-generated electricity is likely to be two-and-a-half times the cost of fossil fuels, support my demand that there should now be a full public inquiry into what has gone on?
Perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord why, having decided, perhaps properly—I shall not go into that issue—to hive off nuclear power into a government-owned body, the Government have decided in the case of Sizewell B to throw good money after bad. There is no way in which Sizewell B can be profitable. There is no way in which Sizewell B can produce electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power stations at present. Why have the Government told the House that they will continue to throw money at Sizewell B at the same time as telling us that Sizewell B will not produce electricity at a cost which is competitive with coal?

973
Does the noble Lord not realise that, even at this stage when the additional costs over and above estimate are projected to be between £500 million and £1,000 million, it would be beneficial to convert the construction to either oil or coal-fired generation? It would be possible to convert the boilers for less than the present cost overrun.
Noble Lords: Too long!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, it is too long, I quite agree, and I am coming to a conclusion. But I urge the Government, in the interests of good government and of democracy, to take on board the points that have been made this afternoon. I hope that they will arrange for a public inquiry to be held.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord has a great deal of expertise in the subject. However, with respect, I believe that his last point goes over ground that has already been covered. Briefly, we have decided to continue with Sizewell B because we believe that it is very important to keep the PWR nuclear option in the United Kingdom in order to retain diversity of supply and because of the environmental benefits.
The noble Lord spoke critically about responsibility for the costs. Perhaps all that I ought to say this afternoon because of time constraints—and there is a Scottish Statement to come after this one—is to repeat that there have been benefits in the story of preparation for privatisation, in that the true costs of the nuclear industry have emerged.
The noble Lord was characteristically fair in speaking about the last 20 years. To give one obvious example, it is in the nature of the cost-plus arrangements that have applied in the nuclear industry to date that insufficient attention is paid to future costs since those costs can always be passed on to customers in the future. Preparation for privatisation has focused attention on those future costs.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of us sympathise with him very strongly, as we do with the Secretary of State, for having to make the Statement which he has repeated this afternoon? There are also many who believe that what has happened may in the long run be for the best. When, during the debate on the amendment that has already been referred to, I suggested that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, might not have had a monopoly of wisdom on the organisation of the electricity industry, perhaps I did not appreciate his perceptive qualities.
Does my noble friend agree that the Opposition cannot have it both ways? With the nuclear industry virtually removed from the privatisation is not the privatisation of the electricity industry, bearing in mind that there is still generation apart from nuclear generation and the merits of the other parts of the industry, now one of the most attractive privatisation opportunities for investors which this Government have so far produced?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer to my noble friend's second question is a resounding yes. I am very grateful to him for asking that. I am also grateful to my noble friend for saying that he believes that, although there are disappointments arising from the Statement, it is for the best that the Statement is made this afternoon.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Minister has said that the CEGB have already incurred half the contractual costs for Sizewell B. Can the noble Lord say what that sum amounts to? Can he also say what are the total costs which have been incurred so far for Hinkley B, Wylfa B and Sizewell C?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I think I said, the total costs for Sizewell are very nearly half the expected total cost of £2 billion at 1939 prices. I am afraid that I do not have the figures for the other power stations which the noble Lord mentioned. However, figures were given in a CEGB memorandum for Hinkley, Wylfa and the preparations for Sizewell C for 1989. I do not have those figures in my head, but they are tiny compared with the cost of Sizewell B.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask three brief questions. I should add that I do not ask them unsympathetically. I appreciate the difficulties into which the Government have got themselves, although one cannot resist saying "I told you so", as they did not have to do it. Perhaps the noble Lord will at least reflect on three of the answers that he has given.
First, on the constitutional question, he has treated the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Diamond, as the stupid boys in the class. I should like to join them as another stupid boy. Will he again explain why a Bill, which the Government insisted sought to privatise the whole of the industry, suddenly becomes an Act to privatise some of the industry, and why no constitutional or other legal issues arise? I can only say that, having spent as much time on the Bill as any noble Lord, I am simply bewildered as to how the fundamentals of the Act can change, yet one just shrugs it off and says that there is no problem here. I admit stupidity here. but I should like to have the matter explained to me again, as I think the other noble Lords would too.
Secondly, will the noble Lord reflect again on the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel about the new nuclear company? It will compete. The Government have said that competition is of the essence here. Again, I cannot see the logic of them limiting the way in which it may compete. The noble Lord may not want to answer that question now, but, once the Government go ahead in that new way, the new nuclear company could validly compete using fossil fuels as well. Again, I think that the Government should at least reflect on that possibility.
My third point relates to costs. Certainly, since I first studied the subject, which is over 25 years ago, I have been perfectly well aware that the zealots in this field exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the costs. I have known that from the very first

975
day when, as a young man, I started to study the economics of nuclear power. I have therefore also known that one allows for that. What has shocked me—and I understand that it has shocked the Government—is the scale on which that has taken place. It is beyond anything that I in my most cynical mood ever thought of. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon about the need for an inquiry should not be rejected, therefore.
This is not a party political issue. It has to do with efficient decision-making in the public sector. I do not make a party political point. I should like to know how the issue became as big as it did and how we only found out as late as we did. I do not argue about the merits of the Act but, in the interests of good government, the present Government should at least consider looking into the matter. I do not press the point any more strongly than that, but it is certainly one to which I should like to know the answer.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having put three good questions. We say that they are good questions if they are difficult to answer.
On the noble Lord's first point, I take issue with noble Lords opposite on the so-called constitutional point. I am surprised, when the exception of nuclear from privatisation was urged so strongly from the other side of the House, and by other noble Lords as well, and when the Government are now proceeding in that way, that it can be held to be some great new constitutional point. It would be so if, in addition we had to go back and change the Act, but absolutely no primary legislation will be needed. That is why I disagreed on that point.
On the question of the new nuclear company, the Government believe that it is sensible policy to leave the fossil companies to go forward to what my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin forecast would be a successful privatisation.
Finally, the costs of decommissioning are not known because decommissioning has not been undertaken in the United Kingdom. We are talking here about underwriting and the provision needed for the future. It was there that those who negotiated contracts began to find that they were running into difficulties. It was because of that that the Government felt that the straightforward thing to do was to keep nuclear in the public sector.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put this point to him. Those of us who said that the exclusion of nuclear, which we certainly pressed for and which we welcome, raises a number of other issues had in mind the point that it could affect the remaining structure. We raise that point because we believe that the proposed division of the CEGB into two parts, which was relevant when nuclear was included, is now no longer relevant. How will that issue be addressed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I have answered that question. I made two points. First, to change course at this moment would be a questionable thing to do when, as my
976
noble friend Lord Gray of Contin rightly pointed out, there are two fossil fuel undertakings which will now proceed to a successful privatisation.
Secondly—noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat the point—when there is provision in the Act and a clear statement in the Statement which I have repeated today that there are new generators who will be keen to come into the market, I can only believe that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin is absolutely correct and that, with the percentages that they have, both National Power and Power Gen have bright futures ahead of them in the privatised market.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether the Government intend to keep the allocation of fossil fuel stations as planned? If that is so, the size of National Power will be materially reduced because it will no longer have the nuclear stations. That would perhaps be helpful to the competition which the Government intend to provide.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend Lord Hood is yes. He is correct in his assumption. The percentage of stations which National Power will have has been reduced. It is 62 per cent. to National Power and 38 per cent. to Power Gen.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is in danger of misleading the House.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the debates on the Electricity Bill, he will see that the cost of nuclear energy has not been revealed since negotiations were undertaken in connection with the Bill. Those costs were constantly put to the Government from Second Reading onwards and the Government refused to listen to them and continually refuted them. They have wasted the time of this House. They asked us to debate a Bill which is now to be completely changed. Noble Lords opposite say that we should now be thankful that they have done what we asked them, but not a bit of it. We were opposed from the start to privatisation per se but we are very much more opposed to a form of privatisation in which it appears that the taxpayer will bear the major costs, thus subsidising the private companies that will be set up. The taxpayer will pay the heavy costs in the nuclear sector of the industry, allowing the private companies to make profits. The losses and expenses will be borne by the taxpayer.
That is a fundamental difference from the Bill which the Government put forward and which we debated here day and night. If the noble Lord the Leader of the House just brushes aside the constitutional point, I ask him to think again. The Government brought forward a Bill which is no longer the Bill that has been put on to the statute book. It is fundamentally different. Our debates were just a waste of time. Surely, on constitutional grounds, when the Government have made such a

977
fundamental change to the Act, it is their duty to seek that the House should recommit it and that we should then have an opportunity to debate the new Bill which they propose to put into statute rather than going on with a hybrid Bill which has been changed by fiat of the Government without any consultation or debate in this House.
5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point that the issues we have been discussing have been quite clear to everybody all the time, I think we have really come full circle. I can only repeat what has been said in the Statement: the House has been given the best information available. New factors have come to light since the Electricity Act completed its passage, and we have laid our proposals before your Lordships at the earliest possible moment.
The second point that the noble Lord made was that the Act has now been changed. The answer to that is no, it has not. That is a point I have made two or three times before. Thirdly, the noble Lord mentioned quite an important point: that in some way the taxpayer will not come out of this well. With great respect to the noble Lord, it is important that I should say that that is not so. As I said in the Statement, we were not prepared to pay the risk premium for which the banks and National Power were asking. So far as the rest of the industry is concerned, which will be privatised, we are determined to get full value for the taxpayer in the proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked about the running of the new nuclear company. I made it clear that the Government will expect a proper return from that company. It is perfectly true that Schedule 12, which deals with grants for back-end costs, remains in the Act, but with that one exception I would expect the new company to be run on a proper commercial basis.
Noble Lords: Next Statement!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to congratulate the Government on having done something extremely sensible, albeit rather late in the day, and albeit they were advised long ago to do so. Secondly, I would ask the Government not to be unduly overweighed by the cold water that has been thrown on the nuclear programme as a whole by my noble friend Lord Williams —whom I congratulate on his recent appointment —and my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I hope that the Government will continue to support nuclear power rather beyond what seems to be the extent of the support in today's Statement.
Lastly, I should like your Lordships to support the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and others who have raised the constitutional issue, although I would not quite call it that. Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House recollect that, as Leader of the House, he is the servant of the House and not merely of the Government? So far in this Statement he has appeared as a Minister, a servant of the
978
Government, rather than as a servant of the House as a Whole.
It is apparent to most of us that, although the Act might not have been changed, the context in which the Bill was discussed has been changed quite substantially. I merely ask the Leader of the House —as Leader of the House and not as a member of the Government —whether he will enter into consultations with my noble friends on the Front Bench and on other Front Benches to see whether or not the Act can be reconsidered, as its context has been substantially altered.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about the future of nuclear power. We remain committed to a continuing role for it. The PWR option in the United Kingdom remains very much open. Sizewell B, as I said earlier, will provide capacity equal to about one-third of the total Magnox capacity, and indeed the Magnox stations' lives can be extended. Therefore, we are very much on the same side as the noble Lord so far as that is concerned.
In my capacity as Leader of the House of course I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has said about what has been called the constitutional point from the other side of the House. However, I have to say, wearing my Leader's hat, that I really do not agree with what noble Lords have said on that particular point.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before —
Noble Lords: Next Statement!
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I have a really important point to make which I shall make as shortly as I can. I realise how long we have been discussing this. If this Bill had been introduced in the form which now applies —that is to say, there was a proposal by the Government to select certain activities out of the industry for privatisation and to leave others —would it not have taken on the nature of a hybrid Bill, and therefore have had to be considered in the way in which hybrid Bills have to be considered?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course I shall look at that point.

Electricity Privatisation, Scotland: Nuclear Power
5.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the future of the electricity supply industry in Scotland.

979
"The House has heard earlier today the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy describing the continuing uncertainties over the costs and longer-term liabilities associated with nuclear power. These uncertainties are also relevant to the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland. I have therefore reassessed my plans for the restructuring and privatisation of the Scottish industry and wish to inform the House of my conclusions.
"Honourable Members will be aware of the important role that nuclear power plays in the Scottish system —the AGR stations at Torness and Hunterston B represent 25 per cent. of the generating capacity held by the Scottish Boards. Hunterston A Magnox station is now approaching the end of its useful life and is scheduled for closure in the near future. The SSEB's nuclear stations have an excellent record of safe performance, and I commend the management and staff of the board for their achievement in constructing and operating them.
"Despite this successful operational performance, the Government have had to examine carefully the future cost uncertainties associated with the nuclear operations in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. After close consultation with the industry, and our financial advisers, we have concluded that the full flotation could not be successfully achieved without wide-ranging and unequivocal indemnity from Government for future cost escalations. We do not consider that it would be in the public interest to confer such indemnity and have therefore decided that the nuclear enterprise in Scotland should remain in the public sector.
"We had already proposed that the nuclear assets would be held by a separate company, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. This company will now remain publicly owned and will be responsible for the continued safe operation of the stations. The staff presently engaged in nuclear matters will be employed by the new company, thus ensuring the retention of the essential expertise required to maintain safe and efficient operation of the stations for the continuing benefit of Scottish consumers. The company will enter into contracts for the sale of its output with the Scottish supply companies —Scottish Power and Hydro Electric. It is certainly our intention that Scottish consumers should continue to benefit from the large investment in nuclear capacity.
"Also, the industry north and south of the Border has been investigating the economic case for upgrading the capcity of the interconnector between Scotland and England. There is a further opportunity which we must now explore to export Scottish output to England and Wales, thus contributing to the diversity of supplies there and maximising the overall economic use of these major assets to the benefit of all concerned.
"The greater proportion of the Scottish industry will be privatised. This will consist of two highly successful transmission, distribution and supply
980
businesses with strong local identities and a modern and diverse portfolio of generating stations. They will own around 75 per cent. of generating capacity and employ 14,000 of the total 16,000 staff in the Scottish Electricity industry. It is our intention to prepare these companies for privatisation within the current Parliament, and my department is assessing with our professional advisers and in consultation with the industry the detailed implications of the Government's decision to withhold the nuclear assets from the sale.
"There will need to be detailed discussions with regard to the proper relationship of the nuclear company with the other parts of the industry. These will be made easier by our previous decision to place all of the nuclear assets in a separate company. I shall wish to ensure that the revised arrangements have no adverse effects on the economy and efficiency of operation of the industry in Scotland and that there will be no adverse implications for tariffs as a result of these changes.
"It will be central to our plans to safeguard the position of the existing staff engaged in the nuclear company. In particular, their pension rights will be protected. The Government will also ensure that these staff will be able to benefit from the flotation of the other parts of the industry. We shall be discussing the detailed implementation of these proposals with the management and the trade unions. The Scottish nuclear company can look forward to a successful and productive future, working in close co-operation with the other electricity companies in Scotland.
"I believe that a proper and carefully balanced mixture of private and public ownership will achieve our objectives and be of real benefit to electricity consumers. The nuclear enterprise will continue to play an important role in delivering a safe, reliable and competitively priced supply of electricity to the people of Scotland for many years to come. Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric will flourish in the private sector and deliver an improved service to their customers in the new environment".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in reading the Statement to the House and for making sure that the staff will be looked after in the new set-up. I am sure that they will be grateful for the assurances. There are many questions to be asked, some of which have been asked in regard to the earlier Statement. One or two questions apply specifically to Scotland.
With great respect to the Leader of the House, I think that in future many constitutional lawyers will pore over this Statement, particularly as it applies to Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked, would the Bill not have had at least a whiff of hybridity had it been brought in earlier: There is always the temptation to say, "I told you so." It is not I who told you so. I and many other people have quoted the chairman of the SSEB. He said quite

981
clearly last December that if the current arrangements in the Bill stood, his company would be totally unsaleable. It has taken a long time for the Government to listen to somebody they should have listened to on behalf of the industry.
There is another point that is interesting from the Scottish point of view, partly because of the size of the industry. The Minister now believes that the nuclear industry and the non-nuclear industry can, with different controls —one nationalised and one non-nationalised —live happily together. However, the Minister in another place said very clearly that there was no possibility of trying to run the two industries unless they were under private enterprise and that therefore there was no room for the mixture as suggested.
I believe that the Minister is inaccurate when he says that AGRs represent only 25 per cent. of the generating capacity in Scotland. He knows that 60 per cent. Of all electricity sold in Scotland comes from nuclear capacity. The noble Lord must know that the chairman of the SSEB said at the beginning of the year that this was the jewel in the crown of the electricity supply industry in Scotland. The Minister must also be aware of the agitation expressed in the Scottish newspapers. All the newspapers are questioning this matter and saying that the whole thing is a mess.
Many questions could be asked, but the only one I should like to ask specifically is this. In Scotland, where there is a high generation of nuclear power, how will the price be set? Will it be merely a matter of marginal costs or will there be some way of determining how the price will be applied to the private industry? In particular, what will be the position of pump storage? It is only a small part, but a very important part, of the Scottish electricity industry. A great deal of the benefit of pump storage comes from superfluous nuclear power at off-peak periods. This is a subject that demands a full and wide debate in the next Session.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reading out the Statement. As someone who has been familiar with the Scottish electricity industry over many years, I should like to say that I fully concur with the tribute paid to that industry in the Statement. I was always under the impression that the AGRs in Scotland had been operating very successfully. Therefore, while I was not surprised that the decision had been reached by the Government to remove the nuclear stations from the English and Welsh electricity industry, I had not come to the same conclusion about Scotland. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why that decision was reached.
The Scottish industry has been very efficient and very successful. For that reason I applaud the proposal that perhaps the interconnector between Scotland and England and Wales could be extended. That would be in the interests of competition.
I should like to make a final point which refers back to the debate on the previous Statement. It is indicated in the Statement that the Government feel
982
that a proper combination of public and private ownership of electricity generation is the right solution. I agree with that comment, but that is not the proposition that was initially before us. Therefore it still raises the question of whether we spend a long time debating a Bill which subsequently was fundamentally changed withcut considering what the consequential effects could be. It raises the question in Scotland and England of whether, without the nuclear stations, the composition of the fossil fuel companies under privatisation is correct and whether those might not be somewhat adjusted consequentially.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for their comments. With regard to the latter point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we have had a fair debate on the constitutional aspects and I do not propose to labour that point in my reply. I should like to take up the other points which have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that Mr. Miller, the chairman of the SSEB, had given advice to the Government. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that Mr. Miller, who is still the chairman of that company, has issued a statement today. It says:
"SSEB regret the Government's decision not to include nuclear stations in the electricity privatisation —although we accept that in the light of the withdrawal of the England and Wales stations, the decision was inevitable".
That leads on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As the noble Lord will know, with his knowledge of the City, there is now such major uncertainty in the minds of the investors that it would not have been possible to proceed with our arrangements north of the Border. The advisers to the Secretary of State were unanimous in that conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question of capacity. The figure given in the Statement is correct. However, I ought to elaborate on that matter. The latest figures we have are for October 1989. They include the percentage of the various elements of the Scottish generation. They are: coal and slurry generation, 45 per cent.; nuclear, 25 per cent.; steam and pump storage, 7 per cent.; hydro-electric, 12 per cent.; and diesel, gas, turbine and wind, 1 per cent.
The noble Lord will understand that the percentage of nuclear is still at a lowish figure compared with the 60 per cent. to which it is intended that it should rise. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the arrangements that will apply as far as concerns the publicly owned nuclear company will be the subject of contracts and that the tarriff continuity will be retained. The price will be set by contract subject to the tariffs being no higher than would have been the case under the previous proposals.
I hope that I have answered the major concerns of noble Lords.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it would not be right to repeat the generalities that I raised on the earlier Statement. However, I believe that it would

983
be very helpful if the Government were to publish what the costs now are believed to be from various sources, not only in Scotland but in the UK, Belgium and France. The nuclear component in Belgium and France is more like 70 per cent. I do not know what provision those countries make for future decommissioning of stations or how much of it is financed privately and how much publicly. In France many factors are different, but the nuclear component is still 70 per cent.
Finally, what are the future prospects for Dounreay?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his question. I shall visit Dounreay next week. I do not think that this Statement makes any difference to the earlier decisions of the Government on Dounreay as a PWR. This is obviously a matter that one will have to consider. However, my estimation is that it does not make any change at this stage.
Yes, the noble Lord is quite right. Various assumptions are made as to the costs of nuclear power. I should like to raise with my right honourable friend whether we can get to the bottom of this bottomless pit. There are clear differentiations to be made between the running costs of Torness, and so on, and the major problem —the capital costs and the decommissioning liabilities.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Will he explain in more detail what will happen about the cost of electricity to the consumer in Scotland? Have we a final conclusion as to what the nuclear decommissioning costs, and therefore the total cost of nuclear electricity generation, will be? Will the consumer in Scotland have to pay the cost willy-nilly because it has been passed on by government fiat? Will the watchdog set up under the legislation have the same powers on government retained activities as it has on the commercial activities and thus protect the consumer?
Finally, I have not the slightest doubt that had there been a nationalisation measure which selected certain parts of the industry for nationalisation and excluded others, every single noble Lord on the other side of the House would be up in arms claiming that it was a hybrid matter which ought to be discussed in the appropriate way in order to protect those individuals who were not being treated on a par with everybody else in the country, as the law required. Does not the same consideration apply when we are in the reverse situation?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I cannot elaborate beyond what was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House on this issue. At Second reading of the Electricity Bill the noble Lord was very voluble as to how he saw the future of the Bill. So far as my noble friend and I understand it, there is to be no change to the Electricity Act, as it now stands.
On prices, consumers must expect to pay their share of increased costs as and when they arise, as in the case of other sources of generation. However,
984
we have powers under the Electricity Act 1989 —of which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is well aware —to avoid undue distortion arising from unanticipated back-end costs and increases. As to the true costs of nuclear power, scrutiny of the figures necessitated by privatisation has revealed that previous estimates of cost were too low and that further scrutiny was necessary. But, as our decision has made clear, some uncertainties remain. I believe that I should address the noble Lord with regard to the Scottish consumer. It is clearly stated that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland realises that Scottish consumers must be protected and that tariffs will be so set.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord clear up one matter? It arose from an answer to my noble friend. He appeared to suggest that the only reason why the Scottish nuclear industry was being hived off into a separate publicly-owned company was because the English nuclear power industry was being hived off. He appeared to be saying that it was all right in Scotland —they were making a profit there and everything was hunky-dory —and that the only reason for hiving off the industry in Scotland was because it had to be done in England.
Is the noble Lord saying that the nuclear industry in Scotland is so much more efficient than that in England that it would be highly profitable for the industry to be floated in Scotland and that people would buy the shares? If that is not what he is saying, what guarantee do we have from now on that this new publicly-owned company will not so arrange the information (if I may put it as kindly as that) as to give a false picture of viability and profitablity in comparison with coal? What guarantee do we have that such information will be more correct than it was under the previous publicly-owned boards?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his questions. Obviously he knows a great deal about the matter. I believe that he was around at the time when his own administration not only consented to the construction of Torness but also to preliminary work.
The noble Lord asks whether the only reason that we are not going down the route of total privatisation of nuclear north of the Border is the fact that the City would not accept it because south of the Border it has been decided that it should not take place. The answer is no. There is no question that the uncertainty surrounding nuclear costs —in particular, decommissioning costs and so on —applies north of the Border just as it does south of the Border. I would only say to the noble Lord that at Torness we may be seeing a quite satisfactory situation with regard to the production of nuclear power. Therefore, considerations may be at a different level than when considering the situation south of the Border. I hope that I have made my point very clear.
On the arrangement of information to be disclosed, as it will be a public sector company Parliament will hold it wholly responsible.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, during the course of the Bill and the preparations for it, the Minister and his right honourable colleagues were congratulated on the fact that they managed to hold the units together in Scotland —in the north of Scotland it was the hydro board, and in the south the electricity board —for privatisation, thereby causing the least possible disturbance to industry. While we did not agree with what they were doing it seemed an extremely good point.
A major portion is now being hived off. Will this make a difference and disturb the more or less happy relationship that we had, and the continuity that was ensured, by keeping these two units together?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, no. I firmly believe that the two privatised companies, which one must recognise cover not only a fair proportion of the generation, as I have shown by the figures, but also the transmission and distribution of electricity in Scotland, will be sizeable companies in their own right even in United Kingdom terms. We believe that, far from changing the plans which I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, welcomed particularly in relation to the Hydro Electric Board, we have viable companies for privatisation. I am happy to say that not only has the chairman of the SSEB been most co-operative under these difficult circumstances but so has the chairman of the Hydro Electric Board. Today he has issued a statement welcoming the decision.
I point to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who is not present but who spoke on Second Reading. He said:
"I believe that it would be sad for us, the owners of this great industry, to see our assets transferred to private ownership at inadequate values". —[Official Report, 25/4/89; col. 1192.]
I believe that the present arrangements will ensure that that does not happen.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I know that it is getting late and I for one cannot wait to return to the intellectual excitements of the Companies Bill. However, I have one further question. We know little about the new Company, Scottish Nuclear Limited. It has been invented by the Government, as it were, to help solve the problem which confronts them. We know nothing about the economic or financial regime under which it will operate. In order that we and people in Scotland may be enlightened as to what we shall have in the public sector will the Minister come back to your Lordships' House with a fuller statement explaining how the company will operate, its objectives, the way in which it will be constrained and so forth? I do not expect an answer tonight but I should like reassurance that we shall have an answer in due course.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend. It is early days for Scottish Nuclear Limited. However, much of the groundwork has been done because the set-up of the company has taken place. The only difference will be the
986
shareholding. The noble Lord is right to point out, as did my right honourable friend in his Statement, that it has a major bearing on the interconnector, the relationship with England and the economics which flow from that. Taking the spirit of the noble Lord's comments, I hope that I shall be able to give him further information. I shall be discussing the matter with my right honourable friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has repeated the misleading impression already given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that only after scrutiny of the costs since the passing of the Bill have the Government discovered what they are. That is not the case. Throughout the passage of the Electricity Bill the Government were consistently given an approximation of the costs of nuclear energy; they constantly refuted them. A series of questions was asked in this House about the real costs of nuclear energy.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, as recently as 10th October his noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is sitting next but one to him, told the House specifically in answer to a Question of mine that AGRs were to be included in privatisation. That was a specific statement. What happened between 10th October and 8th November?
I return to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and which I made earlier. This is an issue in which apparently the Government interpret "privatisation" as meaning that you will sell off the profitable side of the industry and the taxpayer must bear the costs, which the Government do not know even now. The taxpayer will pay for the costs of decommissioning plus the production of nuclear energy, thus subsidising the privatisation. Is that what the Government mean when they talk about privatisation? I believe that we are due for an answer.
I should like to know specifically why it is that on 10th October one Minister tells me that AGRs will be included in the privatisation flotation and then on 8th November another Minister tells the House that they will be included in a new government-owned company?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I was present on that occasion and I know that my noble friend sitting next to me told the noble Lord in no uncertain terms that negotiations and discussions were and have been taking place as recently as a few days ago. What is important, and what seems to have been recognised by all sides of the House, is that if the Government's attention is drawn to information showing that the situation is not what they once believed, they are entitled to come to this House with a decision which must be followed through.
The views held by the noble Lord on nuclear power are extremely well known. We heard about them ad infinitum during the course of the Bill through your Lordships' House. However, the Government believe that we should have a nuclear capacity within the range of what is available in generating electricity and many Members opposite agree with that view.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister answer my specific question about the statement made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne on 10th October?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I honestly believe that the noble Lord is splitting hairs because he is inferring that on 10th October the Government were responsible for a cover up. That is not so. What is relevant is that information has come to light as the procedure has carried on and this decision has been taken. I do not think that I can go further.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
5.37 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
156 After Clause 104, under the heading 'Company records and related matters', insert—
Delivery of documents to the registrar
.—(1) For section 706 of the Companies Act 1985 (size, durability, &c. of documents delivered to the registrar) substitute —
"Delivery to the registrar of documents in legible form
706. —(1) This section applies to the delivery to the registrar under any provision of the Companies Acts of documents in legible form.
(2) The document must —

(a) state in a prominent position the registered number of the company to which it relates,

(b) satisfy any requirements prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this section, and

(c) conform to such requirements as the registrar may specify for the purpose of enabling him to copy the document.

(3) If a document is delivered to the registrar which does not comply with the requirements of this section, he may serve on the person by whom the document was delivered (or, if there are two or more such persons, on any of them) a notice indicating the respect in which the document does not comply.
(4) Where the registrar serves such a notice, then, unless a replacement document

(a) is delivered to him within 14 days after the service of the notice, and

(b) complies with the requirements of this section (or section 707) or is not rejected by him for failure to comply with those requirements,

the original document shall be deemed not to have been delivered to him.
But for the purposes of any enactment imposing a penalty for failure to deliver, so far as it imposes a penalty for continued contravention, no account shall be taken of the period between the delivery of the original document and the end of the period of 14 days after service of the registrar's notice.
(5) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may make different provision with respect to different descriptions of document."
(2) For section 707 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of registrar to accept information on microfilm, &c.) substitute—
"Delivery to the registrar of documents otherwise than in legible form
707. —(1) This section applies to the delivery to the registrar under any provision of the Companies Acts of documents otherwise than in legible form.
(2) Any requirement to deliver a document to the registrar, or to deliver a document in the prescribed form, is satisfied by the communication to the registrar of the requisite information in any non-legible form prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations or approved by the registrar.
(3) Where the document is required to be signed or sealed, it shall instead be authenticated in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations or approved by the registrar.
(4) The document must—

(a) contain in a prominent position the registered number of the company to which it relates,

(b) satisfy any requirements prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this section, and

(c) be furnished in such manner, and conform to such requirements, as the registrar may specify for the purpose of enabling him to read and copy the document.

(5) If a document is delivered to the registrar which does not comply with the requirements of this section, he may serve on the person by whom the document was delivered (or, if there are two or more such persons, on any of them) a notice indicating the respect in which the document does not comply.
(6) Where the registrar serves such a notice, then, unless a replacement document —

(a) is delivered to him within 14 days after the service of the notice, and

(b) complies with the requirements of this section (or section 706) or is not rejected by him for failure to comply with those requirements,

the original document shall be deemed not to have been delivered to him.
But for the purposes of any enactment imposing a penalty for failure to deliver, so far as it imposes a penalty for continued contravention, no account shall be taken of the period between the delivery of the original document and the end of the period of 14 days after service of the registrar's notice.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision with respect to the application of this section in relation to instantaneous forms of communication.
(8) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may make different provision with respect to different descriptions of document and different forms of communication, and as respects delivery to the registrar for England and Wales and delivery to the registrar for Scotland.".
Keeping and inspection of company records.
. —(1) In Part XXIV of the Companies Act 1985 (the registrar of companies, his functions and offices), after the sections inserted by section (Delivery of documents to the registrar) above, insert —
"The keeping of company records by the registrar.
707A. —(1) The information contained in a document delivered to the registrar under the Companies Acts may be recorded and kept by him in any form he thinks fit, provided it is possible to inspect the information and to produce a copy of it in legible form.
This is sufficient compliance with any duty of his to keep, file or register the document.
(2) The originals of documents delivered to the registrar in legible form shall be kept by him for ten years, after which they may be destroyed.
(3) Where a company has been dissolved, the registrar may, at any time after the expiration of two years from the date of the dissolution, direct that any records in his custody relating to the company may be removed to the Public Record Office; and records in respect of which such a direction is given shall be disposed of in accordance with the enactments relating to that Office and the rules made under them.
This subsection does not extend to Scotland.
(4) In subsection (3) "company" includes a company provisionally or completely registered under the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844.".
(2) For sections 709 and 710 of the Companies Act 1985 (inspection of documents kept by the registrar) substitute —
"Inspection, &c. of records kept by the registrar.
709. —(1) Any person may inspect any records kept by the registrar for the purposes of the Companies Acts and may require —

(a) a copy, in such form as the registrar considers appropriate, of any information contained in those records, or

(b) a certified copy of, or extract from, any such record.

(2) The right of inspection extends to the originals of documents delivered to the registrar in legible form only where the record kept by the registrar of the contents of the document is illegible or unavailable.
(3) A copy of or extract from a record kept at any of the offices for the registration of companies in England and Wales or Scotland, certified in writing by the registrar (whose official position it is unnecessary to prove) to be an accurate record of the contents of any document delivered to him under the Companies Acts, is in all legal proceedings admissible in evidence as of equal validity with the original document and as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible.
In England and Wales this is subject to compliance with any applicable rules of court under section 5 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 or section 69(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (which relate to evidence from computer records).
(4) Copies of or extracts from records furnished by the registrar may, instead of being certified by him in writing to be an accurate record, be sealed with his official seal.
(5) No process for compelling the production of a record kept by the registrar shall issue from any court except with the leave of the court; and any such process shall bear on it a statement that it is issued with the leave of the court.
Certificate of incorporation.
710. Any person may require a cerficate of the incorporation of a company, signed by the registrar or authenticated by his official seal.
Provision and authentication by registrar of documents in non-legible form.
710A. —(1) Any requirement of the Companies Acts as to the supply by the registrar of a document may, if the registrar thinks fit, be satisfied by the communication by the registrar of the requisite information in any non-legible form prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations or approved by him.
(2) Where the document is required to be signed by him or sealed with his official seal, it shall instead be authenticated in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations or approved by the registrar.".
Supplementary provisions as to company records and related matters.
. —(1) In Part XXIV of the Companies Act 1985 (the registrar of companies, his functions and offices), after section 715 insert—
"Interpretation
715A. —(1) In this Part —
"document" includes information recorded in any form; and
"legible", in the context of documents in legible or non-legible form, means capable of being read with the naked eye.
(2) References in this Part to delivering a document include sending, forwarding, producing or (in the case of a notice) giving it.".
(2) In section 708(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (fees)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for the words from "any notice or other document" to the end substitute "any document
990
which under those Acts is required to be delivered to him", and

(b) in paragraph (b) omit "or other material".

(3) Omit sections 712 and 715 of the Companies Act 1985 (removal and destruction of old records).
(4) In section 713(1) (enforcement of duty to make returns, &c.), for the words from "file with" to "or other document" substitute "deliver a document to the registrar of companies".
(5) In section 735A(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to Insolvency Act 1936 and Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 as to the Companies Acts)—

(a) after "707(1)," insert "707A(1),",

(b) after "708(1)(a) and (4)," insert "709(1) and (3),", and

(c) for "710(5)" substitute "710A".

(6) After section 735A of the Companies Act 1985 insert—
"Relationship of this Act to Parts IV and V ofthe Financial Services Act 1986
735B. In sections 704(5), 706(1), 707(1), 707A(1), 708(1)(a) and (4), 709(1) and (3), 710A and 713(1) references to the Companies Acts include Parts IV and V of the Financial Services Act 1986.".
(7) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (unregistered companies), in the entry for Part XXIV for "sections 706, 708 to 710, 712 and 713" substitute "sections 706 to 710A, 713 and 7I5A".'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156.
The amendment makes important changes to the provisions in the 1985 Act on the delivery of documents to the registrar, the storage by him of such documents and their retrieval for the purposes of public inspection. Above all, the new sections inserted into the 1985 Act pave the way for long-term improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of Companies House by removing legal obstacles to the greater use of new technology for the delivery, storage and retrieval of documents. I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in general we agree with the Commons amendment. However, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, under new Section 706(2)(c) the registrar may specify his requirements for the purpose of enabling him to copy the document. Can he explain precisely what is meant by that? Is the registrar able to specify in any form and in what form can he copy? How will the provision work?
Secondly, subsection (3) of new Section 706 states:
"If a document is delivered to the registrar which does not comply with the requirements of this section, he may serve on the person by whom the document was delivered (or, if there are two or more such persons, on any of them) a notice indicating the respect in which the document does not comply".
I am not certain how that procedure will operate. Presumably he will have specified some requirements. The document in question does not meet those requirements and somehow he has to serve some sort of notice. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could help me on that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, we accept the amendments produced under this Amendment No. 156 to the Companies Act 1985. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I should like to bring two minor points to the notice of the Minister.
It seems that the intention of the amendment is to change the wording of the sections of the Companies Act 1985 which are concerned with the delivery to the registrar of documents in legible form —and that is what is said in the margin of Amendment No. 156 —and the delivery of documents to the registrar otherwise than in legible form.
The original Section 707 in the Companies Act 1985 appeared to me to go rather further than that. In the margin of that Companies Act —perhaps I may say that it is rather an occupational hazard to have the heavy Act of 1985 without a table in front of me and I hope I shall be excused, not having the advantage of a table which noble Lords on the Front Bench of the Government and the Opposition have —it refers to the,
"Power of the registrar to accept information on microfilm".
I assume that there is some wording which would allow microfilm to be used.
However, I go even further. The wording of Section 707 of the 1985 Act —I say this with some apprehension in the presence of the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches —states:
"The registrar of companies may, if he thinks fit, accept under any provision of the Companies Acts, requiring a document to be delivered to him any material other than a document which contains the information in question and is of a kind approved by him".
I hope that that is the position because I remind your Lordships that during the passage of the Local Government and Housing Bill an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and myself purported to allow certain documents under the land charges Acts to be produced in electronic form. That amendment was supported very strongly by the Law Society as it would save a lot of time and trouble. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government have considered the method of putting documents on any material and therefore in any form, even electronic form and certainly microfilm, which is specifically referred to in the 1985 Act.
There is a smaller point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. That arises out of the new Section 707. Subsection (3) states:
"Where the document is required to be signed or sealed, it shall instead be authenticated in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations or approved by the registrar".
From my study of the new clauses and comparing them with the Companies Act 1985, and bearing in mind what I said earlier this afternoon, some hours ago when we started these proceedings on the Companies Bill, I pointed out that there was a change in the wording of the new Bill to the wording in the 1985 Act. The Government are saying that those words, although changed, are in law the same as the original words. That is a theme which I do not quite understand but at this stage of the Bill we must accept that that is the position.
In this case from my researches I cannot see that in the sections of the Companies Act 1985 there was
992
any reference to the powers which may be prescribed by regulations. Therefore, that is a new matter which arises. I can see that help is coming to the Minister on these minor points that I have raised. I may be wrong, and perhaps I overlooked the fact that regulations could be prescribed earlier; but certainly they are prescribed now.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I want to emphasise that the purpose of these provisions is to make the facilities at Companies House more user-friendly, if I may describe them in that way. They are not really for the benefit of the registrar but for the benefit of those who go to Companies House to inquire into the affairs of different companies. That is the short answer to all the questions which have been put to me.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the object of any intervention I make is to try to ensure that members of the public—professional, academic or otherwise —can understand what is put in the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was emphasising that these provisions are for the benefit of the users of the facilities of Companies House. Section 706(2)(c), about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, specifically asked me, would enable the registrar to receive documents which have sufficient contrast in them to be copied by modern copying equipment. I hope the noble Lord will agree that that is a good idea.
As regards Section 706(3), the notice will be served on the person delivering the document. If it is delivered by more than one person the notice will be delivered to the appropriate person. The registrar will develop his practice in accordance with experience and the views of those who deliver the documents.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, the Bill goes wider than microfilm to allow for new technologies, particularly of an electronic kind, for which Section 707 specifically provides. Both microfilm and electronic means of delivery are potentially covered by the new Section 707. I agree that the new formulation is more general, but that is to allow for yet further technologies which may emerge in the not too distant future.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, can the noble Lord give me the precise wording?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
157 After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
'Membership of holding company.
. —(1) In Chapter I of the Companies Act 1985 (company formation), for section 23 (membership of holding company) substitute —
23. —(1) Except as mentioned in this section, a body corporate cannot be a member of a company which is its holding company and any allotment or transfer of shares in a company to its subsidiary is void.
(2) The prohibition does not apply where the subsidiary is concerned only as personal representative or trustee unless, in the latter case, the holding company or a subsidiary of it is beneficially interested under the trust.
For the purpose of ascertaining whether the holding company or a subsidiary is so interested, there shall be disregarded—

(a) any interest held only by way of security for the purposes of a transaction entered into by the holding company or subsidiary in the ordinary course of a business which includes the lending of money;

(b) any such interest as is mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2.

(3) The prohibition does not apply where the subsidiary is concerned only as a market maker.
For this purpose a person is a market maker if—

(a) he holds himself out at all normal times in compliance with the rules of a recognised investment exchange other than an overseas investment exchange (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986) as willing to buy and sell securities at prices specified by him, and

(b) he is recognised as so doing by that investment exchange.

(4) Where a body corporate became a holder of shares in a company —

(a) before 1st July 1948, or

(b) on or after that date and before the commencement of section (Membership of holding company) of the Companies Act 1989, in circumstances in which this section as it then had effect did not apply.

but at any time after the commencement of that section falls within the prohibition in subsection (1) above in respect of those shares, it may continue to be a member of that company; but for so long as that prohibition would apply, apart from this subsection, it has no right to vote in respect of those shares at meetings of the company or of any class of its members.
(5) Where a body corporate becomes a holder of shares in a company after the commencement of that section in circumstances in which the prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply, but subsequently falls within that prohibition in respect of those shares, it may continue to be a member of that company; but for so long as that prohibition would apply, apart from this subsection, it has no right to vote in respect of those shares at meetings of the company or of any class of its members.
(6) Where a body corporate is permitted to continue as a member of a company by virtue of subsection (4) or (5), an allotment to it of fully paid shares in the company may be validly made by way of capitalisation of reserves of the company; but for so long as the prohibition in subsection (1) would apply, apart from subsection (4) or (5), it has no right to vote in respect of those shares at meetings of the company or of any class of its members.
(7) The provisions of this section apply to a nominee acting on behalf of a subsidiary as to the subsidiary itself.
(8) In relation to a company other than a company limited by shares, the references in this section to shares shall be construed as references to the interest of its members as such, whatever the form of that interest.".
(2) In Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 1985 (interpretation of references to "beneficial interest"), in paragraphs 1(1), 3(1) and 4(2) for "as respects section 23(4)" substitute "as this paragraph applies for the purposes of section 23(2)".'.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 157. The amendment makes two distinct changes to Section 23 of the 1985 Act; that is, the section of the Act which prevents unauthorised reductions in a company's capital by prohibiting the holding of shares by a subsidiary company in its holding company. The changes relate to the exceptions to this general rule.
First, the amendment clarifies the position where a company becomes the subsidiary of another
994
company in which it has a pre-existing shareholding. It does so by permitting a subsidiary which was a member of its holding company before it became a subsidiary to continue to be a member, but provides in that event that the subsidiary has no right to vote in respect of such shares.
We have looked at the point afresh since the Bill was first introduced in the light of outside comment and have concluded that we should make the changes recommended over 25 years ago by the Jenkins Committee. The amendments were introduced and discussed in Commons Standing Committee.
The second change clarifies the effect of Section 23 where a market maker makes a market in the shares of its holding company. New Section 23(3) makes clear that it is permissible for such a subsidiary to hold shares in its holding company for the purposes of making a market in those shares on a recognised investment exchange. Some doubt had been expressed on this point, which has clearly assumed some importance since the securities industry was restructured in 1986.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have only two relatively small points, apart from welcoming the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to our discussions on Commons amendments. The first point concerns the new Section 23. Am I right in thinking that under French corporate law a subsidiary may hold shares in its parent and that that is also true under German and Italian company law? This is my recollection of the position when I dealt with practical business in these matters. If so, is there anything the noble and learned Lord can tell us about the consolidation of company law arrangements within the Community which may lead to a modification of this arrangement in the future? Is it going as it were, our way or their way?
Secondly, the definition of what is a market maker is fraught with problems, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will be aware. If I were to be cynical I could suggest that in order to get around the restrictions imposed under new Section 23 it would be open to a holding company to form a subsidiary which became a market maker—recognised as a market maker by the appropriate supervisory body, the investment exchange, and indeed making markets in shares—but whose primary function could be to hold shares in its parent company, trade them and, indeed, vote them. That is obviously an impossible assumption in the case of large companies. But in the case of small companies, which have a market capitalisation of, say, £5 million to £6 million and are listed on the Stock Exchange, that is not inconceivable as a gateway. Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that that will not occur under this Bill if the Commons amendment as drafted is accepted by this House?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as regards the latter point made by the noble Lord, the exemption will apply only to the extent that the subsidiary concerned is a market maker in a recognised

995
exchange. The exemption will not be available if the purchases are made for other purposes. Moreover, such market makers are already strictly regulated and I hope I can be confident that the relevant regulatory bodies will be in a position to prevent the sort of abuse that is hinted at as being there at least potentially. The noble Lord turns down the corner of his mouth, but I hope I can be confident that that is covered.
Finally, it will be well known to the noble Lord that market manipulation is in any event a serious criminal offence under Section 47 of the Financial Services Act. If a company were set up with the primary purpose of holding its parent's shares it would not get the benefit of Section 23(3).
On the European question, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer. It is a very wide-ranging question.
On Question, Motion agreed to

COMMONS AMENDMENT
158 Leave out Clause 106 and insert —
`Company contracts and execution of documents by companies.
. —(1) In Chapter III of Part I of the Companies Act 1985 (a company's capacity; the formalities of carrying on business), for section 36 (form of company contracts) substitute —
"Company contracts: England and Wales
36. Under the law of England and Wales a contract may be made —

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by any person acting under its authority, express or implied;

and any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.".
(2) After that section insert—
"Execution of documents: England and Wales
36A. —(1) Under the law of England and Wales the following provisions have effect with respect to the execution of documents by a company.
(2) A document is executed by a company by the affixing of its common seal.
(3) A company need not have a common seal, however, and the following subsections apply whether it does or not.
(4) A document signed by a director and the secretary of a company, or by two directors of a company, and expressed (in whatever form of words) to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.
(5) A document executed by a company which makes it clear on its face that it is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed has effect, upon delivery, as a deed; and it shall be presumed, unless a contrary intention is proved, to be delivered upon its being so executed.
(6) In favour of a purchaser a document shall be deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed by a director and the secretary of the company, or by two directors of the company, and, where it makes it clear on its face that it is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed, to have been delivered upon its being executed.
A "purchaser" means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.".
(3) After the section inserted by subsection (2) insert —
"Execution of documents: Scotland.
36B. —(1) Under the law of Scotland the following provisions have effect with respect to the execution of documents by a company.
(2) A document—

(a) is signed by a company if it is signed on its behalf by a director, or by the secretary, of the company or by a person authorised to sign the document on its behalf, and

(b) is subscribed by a company if it is subscribed on its behalf by being signed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) at the end of the last page.

(3) A document shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been subscribed by a company in accordance with subsection (2) if —

(a) it bears to have been subscribed on behalf of the company by a director, or by the secretary, of the company or by a person bearing to have been authorised to subscribe the document on its behalf; and

(b) it bears —

(i) to have been signed by a person as a witness of the subscription of the director, secretary or other person subscribing on behalf of the company; or

(ii) (if the subscription is not so witnessed) to have been sealed with the common seal of the company.

(4) A presumption under subsection (3) as to subscription of a document does not include a presumption

(a) that a person bearing to subscribe the document as a director or the secretary of the company was such director or secretary; or

(b) that a person subscribing the document on behalf-of the company bearing to have been authorised to do so was authorised to do so.

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii), a company need not have a common seal.
(6) Any reference in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument) to a probative document shall, in relation to a document executed by a company after the commencement of section (Company contracts and execution of documents by companies) of the Companies Act 1989, be construed as a reference to a document which is presumed under subsection (3) above to be subscribed by the company.
(7) Subsections (1) to (4) above do not apply where an enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument) provides otherwise.".
(4) After the section inserted by subsection (3) insert —
"Pre-incorporation contracts, deeds and obligations
36C. —(1) A contract which purports to be made by or on behalf of a company at a time when the company has not been formed has effect, subject to any agreement to the contrary, as one made with the person purporting to act for the company or as agent for it, and he is personally liable on the contract accordingly.
(2) Subsection (I) applies —

(a) to the making of a deed under the law of England and Wales, and

(b) to the undertaking of an obligation under the law of Scotland,

as it applies to the making of a contract".
(5) In Schedule 22 of the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), at the appropriate place insert—

"Section 36

Company contracts

Subject to section 718(3).

Sections 36A and 36B

Execution of documents.

Subject to section 718(3).

Section 36C

Pre-incorporation contracts, deeds and obligations.

Subject to section 718(3).".

(6) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations applying sections 36 to 36C of the Companies Act 1985 (company contracts' execution of documents; pre-incorporation contracts, deeds and obligations) to companies incorporated outside Great Britain, subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
Regulations under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) Schedule (Company contracts, seals, &c: further provisions) contains further minor and consequential amendments relating to company contracts, the execution of documents by companies and related matters.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 158. I speak also to the new schedule contained in Amendment No. 453. The new clause and new schedule replace and revise the provisions in the present Clause 106 dealing with the execution of documents by companies.
The present clause permits companies to dispense with the requirement to have a company seal and makes alternative provision for executing documents. The revised provisions incorporate, first, reforms proposed by the Scottish Law Commission on the execution of documents by companies under Scottish law. Secondly the provisions incorporate proposals made in this House that to execute documents other than by sealing, two directors or a director and the secretary should be permitted to sign instead of just a director and the secretary as at first proposed. Thirdly, the provisions incorporate amendments aimed at clarifying and improving the proposals in the present Clause 106 in respect of companies executing documents in England and Wales; and, fourthly, they incorporate provisions with respect to the execution of documents by companies incorporated outside Great Britain.
In all these changes we are grateful to the comments of several professional bodies in both Scotland and England. I should add that in respect of Scotland it had originally been intended that the provisions would be included in a separate Private Member's Bill which originally emanated from the work of the Scottish Law Commission on requirements of writings. Unfortunately, that Bill failed to gain a Second Reading—as is often the case with such Bills—and it is in that context that we now pick up those provisions affecting companies.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 158
158A Line 25, after second (`company") insert ("or by a director and an authorised person").
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 158A. This is an amendment to the new section 36A(4) which relates to the methods of execution of documents in England and Wales. As it stands at present subsection (4) reads:
"A document signed by a director and the secretary of a company, or by two directors of a company".
That would be the way of executing the document.
998
There was much discussion on the signing of documents in the earlier stages of this Bill before it went to the other place. I have been asked to put forward the amendment that after the second `company" —that is, as well as the director and secretary of a company or two directors of a company—a director and an authorised person should be accepted for the signing of certain documents.
I have been asked to present this amendment to your Lordships by the CBI which states that in certain large organisations it is desirable, due to the frequent unavailability of board members, to have authorised persons execute documents on behalf of the company. The CBI instructs me that such an amendment removes what would otherwise be an unnecessary fetter on the normal operation of business. I therefore ask the Government to accept this small amendment.
Moved, That Amendment No. 158A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 158, be agreed to. —(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I too am advised by the CBI. It appears to be plain common sense for a big company. I fail to understand why the amendment cannot easily be accepted.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The proposal is that not only a director and secretary but also an authorised signatory should be able to execute documents in place of the two directors, director and secretary.
While I can immediately see the attraction of this alternative for a large company I have to say that it would create some problems. One difficulty is that while the directors and the secretary are defined officers of the company and can be verified by other parties, any authorised signatory could not be so verified. There would be particular difficulties for bodies such as the Land Registry which has to verify the validity of certain executed documents.
The amendments the Commons have made will give companies the greater flexibility that they have sought and indeed need. With that brief explanation to the two noble Lords I hope they will appreciate that the question of verification is such that I could not agree to the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his. explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 158A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 158, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 158 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
159 After Clause 106, insert the following new clause:
Members' rights to damages.
'.—(1) In Part IV of the Companies Act 1985 (allotment of shares and debentures), before section 112 and after

999
the heading "Other matters arising out of allotment, &c", insert—
"Right to damages, &c. not affected.
111A. A person is not debarred from obtaining damages or other compensation from a company by reason only of his holding or having held shares in the company, or any right to apply or subscribe for shares or to be included in the company's register in respect of shares.".
(2) In section 116 of the Companies act 1985 (extended operation of certain provisions applying to public companies) for "and 110 to 115" substitute ", 110, 111 and 112 to 115".'.
6 P.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159 which will have the effect of completing the reversal of the rule established in the 1880 case of Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank to the effect that a person cannot recover damages from a company while he is still a member of it. This amendment discharges a commitment given at the Committee stage.
Your Lordships will already be aware that the victims of a misrepresentation can already recover from those responsible for it, who may include directors, intermediaries, or experts and any other person responsible for it. What is involved here is the removal of a barrier —the rule in Houldsworth —to allow a person to recover from the company while remaining a member of it. As it is the discharge of a commitment, I hope that the amendment can be welcomed.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
163 After Clause 107, insert the following new clause:
'Issue of redeemable shares.
.—(1) In Part V of the Companies Act 1985 (share capital, its increase, maintenance and reduction), Chapter III (redeemable shares, purchase by a company of its own shares) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 159 (power to issue redeemable shares) insert —
"Terms and manner of redemption.
159A. —(1) Redeemable shares may not be issued unless the following conditions are satisfied as regards the terms and manner of redemption.
(2) The date on or by which, or dates between which, the shares are to be or may be redeemed must be specified in the company's articles or, if the articles so provide, fixed by the directors, and in the latter case the date or dates must be fixed before the shares are issued.
(3) Any other circumstances in which the shares are to be or may be redeemed must be specified in the company's articles.
(4) The amount payable on redemption must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the company's articles, and in the latter case the articles must not provide for the amount to be determined by reference to any person's descretion or opinion.
(5) Any other terms and conditions of redemption shall be specified in the company's articles.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a company to provide in its articles for any matter for which provision is made by this Act.".
(3) In section 160 (financing, &c. of redemption)—

(a) omit subsection (3) (which is superseded by the new section 159A), and

(b) in subsection (4) (cancellation of shares on redemption) for "redeemed under this section" substitute "redeemed under this Chapter".

(4) In section 162 (power of company to purchase own shares), for subsection (2) (application of provisions relating to redeemable shares) substitute —
"(2) Sections 159, 160 and 161 apply to the purchase by a company under this section of its own shares as they apply to the redemption of redeemable shares".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 163.
The amendment would allow a measure of discretion for the directors of a company to fix the terms and conditions of the redemption of redeemable shares as near as possible to the point where they allot them and would clarify that the redemption price may be set in terms of a formula. A number of companies and their advisers involved with such matters on a day-to-day basis have argued the case for this amendment with my department. The Government were sympathetic to the idea that the law in this area should be made clearer and accepted the amendment on that basis.
We accept that it is odd that the power to redeem shares should be so much more restrictively framed than the power to make market purchases of shares. We also accept that the interests of shareholders and creditors are protected against possible abuse through other company law provisions. However, sympathy for the intention is one thing; acceptance of a particular form of words is another. Company law provisions need to work in a technical sense alongside the rest of the law. They also need to take account of the relevant constraints. In the present case we need to be careful to keep within the terms of the second company law directive.
Moving from technical to policy considerations, we need to be sure that those who may stand to lose from a proposal have an opportunity to express their views as well as those who stand to gain. But because the matter was only raised with my department relatively late in the day, we have not had time to carry out these processes as thoroughly as we would ideally wish.
We take the view that the new clause works technically. I have no doubt that it meets the requirements of the second directive. The only remaining areas of possible doubt are whether it might have any side effects which in the enthusiasm for the motive behind it we may have overlooked, and whether there may be any dissenting voices that we have not had the opportunity to hear.
I believe that those possibilities are remote, and it is for that reason that I advise the House to agree the new clause. But I think it would provide a worthwhile extra safeguard if I were to say that we would not intend to commence the new clause if some unforeseen problem were to come to our attention in the near future which has not yet been discussed in Parliament.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of this amendment. However, it is rather odd that at this stage of the Bill when your Lordships are considering Commons amendments we have a new clause about which the Government express a certain amount of doubt. I am not saying that the Government are unjustified in expressing such doubt because the area of redeemable shares is a very difficult one. I accept that there may be unforeseen side effects. It is odd that we are considering this matter when the Bill is at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute of its passage through both Houses of Parliament.
From what the noble and learned Lord has said, do I understand that, in the clause dealing with the commencement order to the various sections of the Bill, there will be some provision that the commencement order can be delayed as regards this new clause? Is that right?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes. I hope the noble Lord appreciates that we are in a difficult area with a new matter of this kind. We are not dealing in some cavalier fashion with a proposal that we intend to introduce immediately without the most careful consideration. I sought to indicate to the noble Lord that we have discussed the matter as widely as possible, and we have every reason to believe that there are no problems. I signal to him and the whole House that if there were to be any difficulties as regards commencement it is not a question of having a special provision in the commencement order to deal with the problem. I believe I am giving the noble Lord the assurance that he wants.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
164 After Clause 108, insert the following new clause:
`Orders imposing restrictions on shares
. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such amendments of the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 relating to orders imposing restrictions on shares as appear to him necessary or expedient —

(a) for enabling orders to be made in a form protecting the rights of third parties;

(b) with respect to the circumstances in which restrictions may be relaxed or removed;

(c) with respect to the making of interim orders by a court.

(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are section 210(5), section 216(1) and (2), section 445 and Part XV of the Companies Act 1985.
(3) The regulations may make different provision for different cases and may contain such transitional and other supplementary and incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
164A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. I have tabled this Motion not necessarily because I wish to divide your Lordships' House on the issue but because it merits a certain amount of discussion. The new clause which is the object of Amendment No. 164 gives the Secretary of State power to make by regulation through statutory instrument,
"such amendments of the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 relating to orders imposing restrictions on shares as appear to him necessary or expedient",
for certain purposes. In other words, the law can be rewritten as regards the restriction on shares.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd or Kilgerran, has pointed out on a number of occasions, it is not only very important that your Lordships should comprehend what the Government have in mind in making this legislation but that the professional operators in the market and others should also comprehend what they intend. I have no idea what is the intention of the Government and what the Secretary of State in the future might, by regulation, impose as restrictions on shares protecting the rights of third parties and others. I wonder whether when the Minister is replying he can give some idea what this matter is about. It appears to be a very sweeping power for the Secretary of State and I wish to know in what manner it is to be applied.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has pointed out, we on these Benches always become suspicious and proceed with some caution when we see that there are powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations without indicating the objective of those regulations. However, I am a little consoled concerning this amendment and the powers of the Secretary of State because of subsection (4) of the Commons amendment, which states:
"Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament".
It is perhaps an esoteric question whether the matter can be debated and rejected. That question cannot be answered. I simply wish to add my doubts as regards the amendment and to support the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in what he said.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall first answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Yes, of course regulations laid in draft which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure can be rejected by either House where the relevant Act so provides.
I recognise that the granting of new powers to the Secretary of State in this area of the law is a sensitive matter. But I hope that noble Lords will agree that the powers in Amendment No. 164 concern an objective that we all share. The amendment deals with the important subject of the disclosure of interests in shares. I think there is agreement that there should be proper disclosure of interests in shares and that, indeed, the existing provisions of the Companies Act

1003
1985 should be strengthened. There may be some differences of opinion as to how far we should go, but the general principle is not at issue.
The objective of Amendment No. 164 is to support that principle. Following the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Gibson in the case of Re Lonrho plc, there is a real danger that the courts might become reluctant to make orders under Section 216 of the 1985 Act restricting the rights attached to shares in circumstances where innocent third parties have interests in the shares concerned. Freezing orders are an essential sanction to ensure compliance with investigations by companies under Section 212 of the 1985 Act into interests in their shares. Any diminution in the use of freezing orders would undermine the ability of companies to use Section 212 to discover the beneficial owners of shares held by nominees. I do not imagine that that is an outcome that noble Lords would wish to see.
In the case of Re Lonrho, the company was applying for an order to be made under Section 216 of the Companies Act restricting the rights attached to shares in the company. The reason for the application for a freezing order was that there had been a failure to comply with notices issued by Lonrho under Section 212 of the Act inquiring into the ownership of its shares.
The application was subsequently withdrawn. But before this was done, Mr. Justice Gibson was asked to rule on the question of whether the court making an order under Section 216 had the discretion to qualify the order so that only some of the restrictions in Part XV of the Act would apply or so that specified persons would be excluded from the effect of the restrictions. Two banks had taken some of the shares as security for loans. All parties, including Lonrho, agreed that the banks should be excluded from the effect of any order. They were innocent third parties who had not been responsible for any failure to comply with Section 212 notices. If the restrictions of Part XV had been applied without qualification, the banks would have been unable to sell their shares to realise their security in the event of any default on the loans. The court ruled that it was unable, under the terms of the 1985 Act, to qualify any order that it made. It had the choice between making an order that applied all the restrictions to all persons including innocent parties, or making no order at all, thus letting off any person who failed to comply with a Section 212 notice.
The effect of this judgment could be extremely damaging in cases where innocent third parties have interests in shares that are subject to an application for a freezing order. If the courts continue to make orders in these circumstances, innocent parties will suffer. Of even greater concern, perhaps, is that the courts may well decide in the future not to make freezing orders that affect innocent parties. These orders are a vital sanction to support the Section 212 procedure, which is itself an essential tool for the disclosure of interests in shares. If freezing orders were not to be made in certain circumstances, the Section 212 procedure might be seriously undermined, to the detriment of companies and transparency in the market.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give me references for the Lonrho case? That might save us a great deal of research. Does he have at hand the references to the case and the judgment of Mr. Justice Gibson?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have the detailed references which the noble Lord seeks, but I shall certainly ensure that he receives them. The precise amendments to be made will, however, need careful consideration to ensure that no loopholes for the guilty are created when exempting third parties. For this reason, Amendment No. 164 is an enabling power. It would allow the Secretary of State to carry out the necessary consideration and to consult those affected.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State directly to address the effect of the Lonrho judgment. At present, the court is faced with the choice of either making an order that applies all restrictions to all persons with interests in the shares, including innocent parties, or making no order at all, thereby letting off the possibly far from innocent beneficial owner. Subsection (1)(a) would allow the Secretary of State to amend the 1985 Act so that freezing orders may be made in a form protecting third parties. For example, those acting in good faith could be excluded from the effect of a freezing order. Subsection (1)(b) would allow the Secretary of State to relax the conditions that must currently be met —even by third parties —if restrictions that have already been made are to be lifted. Subsection (1)(c) addresses another important point by allowing the Secretary of State to give statutory authority to interim orders made by the courts. It is essential that freezing orders can be made quickly —sometimes on an ex parte basis —before the full hearing of an application so that the beneficial owner does not have time to transfer the shares.
It is important to note that that is all the amendment allows the Secretary of State to do. It does not give him wide powers to amend the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act. He may change them only to carry out the three specific purposes that would, if the amendment is agreed to, have been set out by Parliament. Moreover, the power is a power to amend only. Unlike the powers already in the related Clause 108, it does not extend to a power to replace or repeal.
The Government would certainly have preferred, if it had been possible, to bring forward substantive amendments to implement the objectives of the amendment in the primary legislation. But the judgment in the Lonrho case is a recent one —28th June —and there has simply not been time to consider all the implications. I do not think, however, that it is unreasonable to leave the detailed implementation to regulations made by the Secretary of State. The important point is that it would be Parliament through the primary legislation that would be approving the policy objective. We should not miss this opportunity to take action now. Otherwise we run the risk of an important part of

1005
the system of disclosure being undermined with no opportunity for some years to put it right.
There is wide support outside Parliament for the amendment. The British Bankers' Association, the CBI and the Law Society support it. Perhaps more important, there are indications that the judiciary is concerned about the present state of the law and the possible effect that it might have on the courts' willingness to make freezing orders. Indeed, Mr. Justice Gibson himself said that he reached his decision on the effect of the existing law with reluctance and that he would very much have liked to have been able to rule that the courts could qualify orders to exclude innocent parties.
The amendment furthers a principle that is accepted, I believe, by most noble Lords. It gives the Secretary of State only narrowly constrained powers to carry out the express wishes of Parliament. And it addresses concerns of the judiciary and of distinguished bodies outside Parliament. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will be able to agree with the Commons in their amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of Amendment No. 164. On these Benches we agree with the objective. I now understand why, although the Government might have wished to do so, they were unable to bring forward substantive legislation in primary form, which we could have discussed as such. That is what I would have preferred. Having said that, I understand that the appopriate judgment was made in late June and that its implications have to be considered by the Government. In this case, given the noble Lord's assurances to the House today about what exactly is intended, I am happy with Amendment No. 164. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
160 Clause 108, page 107, line 38, at end insert—
'The order bringing the above amendment into force may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State appropriate as to the obligations of a person whose interest in a company's shares becomes notifiable by virtue of the amendment coming into force.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 160. I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 161. These amendments make two technical changes to Clause 108 which deals with the disclosure of interests in shares.
Subsection (2) of Clause 108 lowers the threshold for disclosure of interests in shares. The Law Society
1006
has expressed some doubt as to whether those persons holding between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. when the provision is commenced will have to disclose at that time. Amendment No. 160 gives the Secretary of State the ability to make provision for such persons in the commencement order. It is the intention to require them to disclose subject to appropriate transitional arrangements.
Amendment No. 161 will require disclosure when an option to purchase shares is exercised. At present only the initial purchase of the option is notifiable. The Stock Exchange and the Law Society have suggested —and we agree —that the exercise of an option is an important matter which should be disclosed to the company.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
162 Clause 108, page 108, line 8, at end, insert 'and
(e) the provisions as to company investigations (section 212);'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 162.
The amendment enables the Secretary of State to amend the provisions of Section 212 of the Companies Act 1985 by regulations subject to affirmative procedure. Section 212 permits companies to issue notices inquiring into the ownership of their shares. Failure to comply with such a notice is a criminal offence under Section 216 of the 1985 Act. The company may also apply under that section for an order freezing the shares.
As the noble Lords will recall from the Committee and Report stages, the Government do not at present see any need to amend Section 212. But we accept the argument that in the light of the importance of the section we should not have to wait until the next Companies Bill to correct any inadequacies that may become apparent (perhaps from a court decision). There was a consensus in favour of this argument and the amendment moved by a Back-Bench government supporter in another place.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
165 After Clause 108, insert the following new clause —
'A company's registered office.
. For section 287 of the Companies Act 1985 (registered office) substitute—
"Registered office.
287. —(1) A company shall at all times have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed.
(2) On incorporation the situation of the company's registered office is that specified in the statement sent to the registrar under section 10.
(3) The company may change the situation of its registered office from time to time by giving notice in the prescribed form to the registrar.
(4) The change takes effect upon the notice being registered by the registrar, but until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is registered a person may validly serve any document on the company at its previous registered office.
(5) For the purposes of any duty of a company —

(a) to keep at its registered office, or make available for public inspection there, any register, index or other document, or

(b) to mention the address of its registered office in any document.

a company which has given notice to the registrar of a change in the situation of its registered office may act on the change as from such date, not more than 14 days after the notice is given, as it may determine.
(6) Where a company unavoidably ceases to perform at its registered office any such duty as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) in circumstances in which it was not practicable to give prior notice to the registrar of a change in the situation of its registered office, but —

(a) resumes performance of that duty at other premises as soon as practicable, and

(b) gives notice accordingly to the registrar of a change in the situation of its registered office within 14 days of doing so.

it shall not be treated as having failed to comply with that duty.
(7) In proceedings for an offence of failing to comply with any such duty as is mentioned in subsection (5), it is for the person charged to show that by reason of the matters referred to in that subsection or subsection (6) no offence was committed.".'
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165. This amendment inserts a new clause in place of existing provisions on registered offices which are not working satisfactorily. In particular there is uncertainty as to the point in time at which a change of registered office takes effect.
The proposed new clause makes it plain in re-enacting the fundamental requirement that every company must at all times have a registered office that a change in registered office takes effect on registration by the Registrar of Companies —that is, when the due notice delivered to the registrar is entered onto the register. This is important since the basic rule is that a document may be properly served on a company by sending it to that company's registered office. Moreover, a company is required to keep various registers at its registered office and a failure to do so is a criminal offence. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the merit of these proposals.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
166 After Clause 108, insert the following new clause —
'Effecting of insurance for officers and auditors of company
.—(l) In section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 (provisions exempting officers and auditors from liability), for subsection (3) (permitted provisions) substitute —
"(3) This section does not prevent a company —

(a) from purchasing and maintaining for any such
1008
officer or auditor insurance against any such liability, or

(b) from indemnifying any such officer or auditor against any liability incurred by him —

(i) in defending any proceedings (whether civil or criminal) in which judgment is given in his favour or he is aquitted, or

(ii) in connection with any application under section 144(3) or (4) (acquisition of shares by innocent nominee) or section 727 (general power to grant relief in case of honest and reasonble conduct) in which relief is granted to him by the court".

(2) In Part I of Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985 (general matters to be dealt with in directors' report), after paragraph 5 insert—
"Insurance effected for officers or auditors
5A. Where in the financial year the company has purchased or maintained any such insurance as is mentioned in section 310(3)(a) (insurance of officers or auditors against liabilities in relation to the company), that fact shall be stated in the report.".'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
166A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 166A standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It is a Motion that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.
Section 310 has caused a great deal of difficulty since it became enacted. Although in principle we are sympathetic to the reformulation that companies ought to be allowed to pay insurance premiums for directors—otherwise we would never have any directors —we are worried because the formulation includes the possibility of companies purchasing and maintaining for their officers insurance against any liability for breach of trust. Mention was made of "breach of trust" in the original Section 310 of the Companies Act 1985.
So far as concerns negligence, default or even breach of duty, I think that we may be prepared to go along with the Government and say, "Yes, a company may purchase insurance so that its officers and directors may be indemnified against any liability". However, when it comes to a breach of trust of which a director or officer is guilty in relation to the company, I think that we must take issue with the Government. I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could explain exactly why the Government take that rather extreme view.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, the present effect of Section 310 is subject to the exception contained in subsection (3) to render void any provision, whether contained in a company's articles or in any contract with the company or otherwise, or exempting any officer of the company or any person employed by the company as an auditor from, or indemnifying him against, any liability which by any rule of law would

1009
otherwise attach to him in respect of any negligence, default or —and this was a particular concern of the noble Lord —breach of trust of which he may be guilty in relation to the company.
The first of the Government's amendments, Amendment No. 166, would make it clear that companies may take out insurance against those liabilities on behalf of their officers and auditors without that insurance being void. It also requires the existence of such insurance to be disclosed in the directors' report. The remainder of the amendment simply tidies up the drafting.
Amendment No. 317 is the second government amendment in this grouping. It is a consequential amendment to the Building Societies Act 1986 and will enable the provision in that Act which is analogous to Section 310 to be amended.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that any insurance policy which sought to cover any deliberate criminal breach of trust would continue to be void. The measure ensures that the company would receive compensation in such a case. I should have thought that many noble Lords would have welcomed the amendment, which is intended to take account of the growing concern among company directors about the potentially large sums for which they may become liable in respect of matters set out in Section 310 and the resultant possibility that they may become reluctant to take on directorships. It should be especially beneficial to non-executive directors, particularly those in small companies who are paid only relatively small sums for their services but who are, nonetheless, potentially liable in law with their executive colleagues for substantial sums.
I hope that the reassurance I have given that deliberate breaches of trust which amount to criminal activity will not be covered will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will agree with the amendment that we have put forward.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the CBI advises me that it sees this amendment as allowing companies to insure officers and auditors against liability for breaches of duty. The confederation has campaigned vehemently for this modification of Section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 and is most pleased to support the Government in introducing the amendment, which clarifies the law in this area. I trust therefore that noble Lords opposite will understand and appreciate what is proposed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for explaining, if I may say so, what I thought I knew about the Commons amendment. It does indeed do exactly what he said. However, the point upon which I focused was that concerning breach of trust. I totally accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. I have no quarrel at all with the generality of the provisions.
My suspicion is that my problem will be solved by what are known as market forces, because I do not believe that anyone would insure against a breach of trust of a non-criminal nature. I am probably
1010
saved by the fact that the insurance market does not work in that way. Nevertheless, it is sad to write into statute something which fundamentally should not be there. Resting my hopes, as I do in the market, I hope that the market will solve that problem. I therefore reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move tht the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
167 Insert the following new clause—
Increase of limits on certain exemptions.
. Part X of the Companies Act 1985 (enforcement of fair dealing by directors) is amended as follows —

(a) in section 332(1)(b) (short-term quasi-loans) for "£1,000" substitute "£5,000";

(b) in section 334 (loans of small amounts) for "£2,500" substitute "£5,000";

(c) in section 338 (4) and (6) (loans or quasi-loans by money-lending company) for "£50,000" substitute "100,000".'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 167.
The amendment would have the effect of raising certain limits (calculated on an aggregated basis) on the loans and quasi-loans that may be made by a company either to one of its own directors or to one of the directors of its holding company. It would also have the effect of raising the limit (on an aggregated basis) for loans or quasi-loans that can be made by a money-lending company to one of its directors as well as raising the limit on the guarantees which can be given by such companies to their directors in respect of such loans or quasi-loans.
The present limits on the transactions that are dealt with in this amendment have not been changed since 1980. As a consequence, some updating is required to compensate for the effects of inflation and, in carrying out that revision, we have taken the opportunity to go a little beyond what is immediately necessary in order to ensure that they do not have to be changed again in the foreseeable future. I hope that those sensible provisions commend themselves to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not have the Companies Act 1985 in front of me. Will the Minister say whether the omission of the pound sterling sign in front of the figure of 100,000 in the last line of the amendment is deliberate or accidental?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, everything we do is deliberate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
168 Clause 109, line 40, leave out 'company's' and insert 'type of company it is and its'.
169 Page 110, line 22, at end insert—
'(1A) The information as to the company's type shall be given by reference to the classification scheme prescribed for the purposes of this section.'.
170 Page 110, line 45, leave out from first 'of to 'and' in line 46 and insert 'issued shares of the company at the date to which the return is made up'.
171 Page 111, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert 'issued shares of that class at the date to which the return is made up.'.
172 Page 111, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
'(4) The return shall contain a list of the names and addreses of every person who—

(a) is a member of the company on the date to which the return is made up, or

(b) has ceased to be a member of the company since the date to which the last return was made up (or, in the case of the first return, since the incorporation of the company);

and if the names are not arranged in alphabetical order the return shall have annexed to it an index sufficient to enable the name of any person in the list to be easily found.
(5) The return shall also state —

(a) the number of shares of each class held by each member of the company at the date to which the return is made up, and

(b) the number of shares of each class transferred since the date to which the last return was made up (or, in the case of the first return, since the incorporation of the company) by each member or person who has ceased to be a member, and the dates of registration of the transfers.'.

173 Page 112, leave out line 20, and insert—
"(f) section 363 (duty of company to make annual returns);".'.
174 Page 112, line 20, at end insert—
'(5) In section 565(6) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (conditions for exemption from provisions relating to sub-contractors in construction industry: compliance with requirements of Companies Act 1985), in paragraph (d) for "sections 363, 364 and 365" substitute "sections 363 to 365".'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 168 to 174.
The amendments make minor changes to the content of the annual return that companies are required to file at Companies House. I have a great deal of detail which I can give your Lordships if that is required.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
175 Page 112, line 21, leave out Clause 110.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175.
The amendment has already been spoken to.
1012
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
176 Clause 112, page 115, line 20, leave out from 'time' to `but' in line 21.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176.
I believe that I should speak at the same time to Amendment No. 177, to which of course the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has tabled an amendment. Accordingly, I shall wait for the noble Lord to move his amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
177 Page 115, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'do' and insert—
'(4) An application may be made under section 651(5) of the Companies Act 1985 as inserted by subsection (3) above (proceedings for damages for personal injury, &c.) in relation to a company dissolved before the commencement of this section notwithstanding that the time within which the dissolution might formerly have been declared void under that section had expired before commencement.
But no such application shall be made in relation to a company dissolved more than twenty years before the commencement of this section.
(5) Except as provided by subsection (4), the amendments made by this section'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
177A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 177A standing in my name on the Marshalled List. We do not disagree with the basic thrust of what is proposed by the Commons, but it is, I am afraid, a necessary procedure when dealing with Commons amendments to move Motions so as to have a debate and to have a chance to respond to the Minister's reply to the substance of what we have to say. It is for those reasons that I have moved the Motion, not to indicate disapproval of the basic intent of what Amendment No. 177 seeks to do.
There are, however, two possible problems with Amendment No. 177. The first is the 20-year old problem. If a company was dissolved 20 years previously, it is not inconceivable that the documents of that company will not have been kept and will not be available and therefore that there cannot be any proceedings for damages. That may be a rather long period for dissolved companies' documents to be kept hanging around somewhere in limbo in a sort of life-after-death situation.
The second problem is that the provisions start to smack of a bit of retrospective legislation. I should like to have some comfort from the Minister that

1013
that is in order and that the sums involved are not substantial. Those are the two points that I wish to raise, and I look forward to hearing the Government's reply.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I take a rather more critical view of the amendments than did the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Just before he sat down he said that Amendment No. 177 smacked of retrospection. It is an absolute slap in the face so far as retrospection goes. It is clear that the effect of that amendment is to reopen a potential liability on the part of an insurance company which, under the existing law as it has always been believed to be —which was upheld in the case of Bradley v. Eagle Star Insurance—would have known that once the period had expired (it was then two years) that was the end of the opportunity to declare the dissolution void. Consequently, a claim against a company, which might then result in a claim against its insurers, would no longer lie.
I may be out of order in talking to Amendment No. 176. One can perhaps quarrel with the extension of two years to 20 years, although I can understand the reason for it. I believe that I can equally understand the indignation of some of the insurance companies. It seems to me that the House should look with extreme care at Amendment No. 177. When I saw the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the Marshalled List, I though that he was perhaps going to undertake the Opposition's traditional and proper role of challenging governments when they introduce retrospective legislation. I was appalled to hear him say that he agreed with the amendment although there might be some minor obstacles.
We should be under no illusion whatever as to the effect of Amendment No. 177. It reopens the possibility of a litigant challenging the dissolution of a company and getting a court to declare, where that right has not previously existed, that the dissolution at any time up to 20 years previously is void. It is reviving a right which the previous law declared dead.
I have defended from the Dispatch Box in another place, and I have supported from the Back Benches, retrospective legislation to restore the law to what everybody always thought it was. A case may be decided in the courts which effectively defeats what had always widely been regarded as the intention of Parliament. However, I shall always challenge, and I hope I shall have some support in challenging, legislation which seeks to reverse the effect of a court case which in fact revives a potential obligation which did not hitherto exist. Previously one could go back two years; now one can go back 20 years and do so retroactively.
It seems to me that however much sympathy one may have with the plaintiff who has suffered injury or disease, if his right was exhausted under the existing law it should not lie within the powers of this Parliament —although of course Parliament can
1014
do anything —but it is not consistent with the rule of law that Parliament should legislate to revive that, to the detriment of the other parties. The fact that it happens to be an insurance company seems to me to show that we are beginning to adopt the attitude of the American courts. The first question that the judge asks is whether or not the liability in the case is insured. If it is, one is pretty certain that the American court will hold that the plaintiff wins.
I earnestly beg your Lordships to look most carefully at this provision. What will its effect be? Companies which have been dissolved for two years or more and their insurers will be affected. What will happen to the records which might be necessary in order to defend a claim which is brought by a plaintiff in that case? It was thought that the matter was dead and under the existing law it was dead. Something may have happened 10 years ago. The company may have been dissolved 10 years ago. The whole matter has finished and passed into history. As I read the clause, there will be a revival of that dead right. The courts will be allowed to declare the dissolution of a company void and allow the action to proceed, notwithstanding that every record in the case has long since been consigned to the dustbin.
I cannot believe that it is right that we should do this. Certainly, it is a matter which seems to have slipped by with remarkably little attention given to it by the lawyers who are normally very quick to seize on retrospective legislation and to challenge it. However, I have to say that I remain profoundly unhappy.
Since the noble Lord has put down an amendment that we should not agree with Commons Amendment No. 177, the only one that is retrospective—one may not like Amendment No. 176, but it is not retrospective —I am inclined to ask your Lordships to refuse customary leave for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I ask noble Lords to seek to take the opinion of the House on the matter. I do not think that we should accept this kind of retrospective legislation.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, while I share to the full the dislike of retrospective legislation, this is a special case. It is not directed against insurance companies. It is directed to a bargain and a bargain should be carried out. What happens is that the insurance company enters into a bargain. It takes a premium and agrees to pay if there is an injury within the policy. Years go by. The fact that the risk matures is not known to anybody because it is one of those diseases which does not reveal itself until later, after the injury has been caused. When the injury is caused there is a cause of action: the insurance company has to pay.
Suddenly it is said, "Oh, but if the company which employed the injured person has been dissolved, then although the insurance company has taken the premium and entered into a bargain, it is free from that bargain". I failed to persuade my four colleagues in the Appellate Committee that as a matter of law the dissolution of the company is irrelevant. However, I am entitled to, and I do, say that the

1015
majority of the Appellate Committee reached that conclusion with reluctance, only on the basis of the present law.
The argument against retrospectivity is this. The company having retrospectively had the premium, the company having retrospectively assumed the risk, it is right that the company should pay, notwithstanding the perfectly irrelevant dissolution of the employer. That is why the amendment has been brought in.
The other point which has been raised is about the absence of documents. Of course documents can be absent, whether the employer company has gone into dissolution or not. But more than that, it will be for the plaintiff, the injured person, to seek the documents because it will lie upon the plaintiff, if necessary some 20 years after the event has occurred, to prove to the court that it was the employer who caused the injury. Asbestosis is a typical case in point. If the documents are missing, it will be the plaintiff who fails. If the documents are there, why should not the plaintiff be able to come to court? Why should not the insurance company have to pay?
In this particular instance I commend to your Lordships the amendments made in another place and I support the Government in their view on the matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have listened with very great care to the words uttered by your Lordships this evening. Before amendment, Clause 112, which amends Section 651 of the Companies Act 1985, would have enabled the court to reverse the dissolution of a company on a relevant application made within 20 years of the date of dissolution, rather than within two years as at present. This increases the opportunities for recovering compensation for personal injuries by an employee whose company has gone into liquidation and been dissolved where the company had relevant insurance cover. After debate in the other place the Government accepted that as some diseases may take much longer than 20 years to become apparent then there should be no future time limit within which personal injury applicants must act, although they would, as under the unamended clause, fail if clearly barred by the Statute of Limitations.
The provisions of subsection (4) of the clause as it left this House restricted the restoration to those companies which were dissolved no more than two years before the commencement of the section. It is, of course, not in general acceptable to legislate in a manner which retroactively alters rights or obligations. However, Members from all sides in the other place argued forcefully that the two-year restriction would cause hardship and was unjust to personal injury claimants, for example, who have contracted an industrial respiratory disease and who, because of their employer's subsequent liquidation and dissolution, could not pursue their remedy against the company and hence its insurers. There may also be an element of misfortune in that the claimant just happens to have a claim against a company which is subsequently dissolved and cannot be restored after two years.
1016
I have said that retroaction is not normally acceptable. However, the Government accept that hardship has been suffered and that this injustice should be remedied in this particular instance. This of course has the full support of many leading members of the legal profession. Your Lordships will have heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, this evening. The Limitation Act 1963 is a precedent for retroactive legislation in this area. If the noble Lord's amendment were eventually accepted, it would reinstate the original limit of two years and the injustice and hardship to which I have referred would continue. I am sure that your Lordships will be happy to endorse the Commons amendments and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will therefore agree to withdraw his Motion. Judging by what he has said, I feel certain that he will.
I now turn to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I accept that due account must be taken of the position of insurers. Insurance premiums are calculated by reference to the insurer's past experience of similar claims. The reserves of the insurance company are determined on a similar basis and therefore do not include provision to any greater extent than the insurer can expect in the light of its previous record of such claims.
When the Government first considered amending Section 651, they were concerned about the principle of retroaction, but those concerns have been allayed by the number of lawyers who support retroaction in this instance and by the feelings expressed in another place with Opposition and Government Members united. Hardship has been suffered and I believe the view of this House is that we should agree with the views of the legal profession and those expressed in another place and exceptionally remedy that injustice.
This is a question of balancing the position of the insurance industry on the one hand against that of those persons suffering unjust hardship on the other. Having listened to the arguments put forward, I feel that the right balance has been struck. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, specifically asked me about the retention of papers for the 20-year period. We are justified in choosing that period to allow actions where the papers of the company are still in existence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said in the course of his remarks, there will no doubt be cases where the papers do not exist and that will often prevent an action going ahead. I believe that the amendment proposed by another place is the right one and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not seek to press his Motion.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he can answer a query I have. I should say immediately that I have no legal knowledge. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, and what has been said from the Cross-Benches, will the noble Lord say what is special or magic about 20 years? I hear that two years is normally the period which appears in legislation. There is quite a difference between two years, if that is the situation, and the proposal of 20 years in the

1017
amendment. I feel that noble Lords are entitled to an explanation on that point.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall venture to answer that point. The two-year period applied right across the board. It had nothing to do with personal injuries. It is quite inappropriate to a disease such as asbestosis where a man is employed and thinks he is well but years later it is discovered that he has the disease. A two-year period for such a disease is useless. All the experience of asbestosis and other such industrial diseases shows that a 20-year period is required. It is arguable that there may be a case for 30 years. However, the Government have chosen 20 years. In nearly every case the disease will have manifested itself within 20 years, but it will not do so within two years. That is why one has to go from two years to 20 years. The amendment is carefully drawn so that it only applies to those kinds of injury where, through no fault of the injured person, he wakes up years later to discover he has contracted this disease while working for his employer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, who has set my mind at rest on one aspect, the retrospection aspect. The noble and learned Lord quite rightly pointed out —the Minister quite rightly picked him up on that —that if records are not preserved it is the plaintiff who will suffer rather than the insurance company. I am reassured by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord.
As regards the 20-year period, I accept entirely what the noble and learned Lord said. I believe the Government have to decide on a period. One can argue endlessly whether that period should be 20 years, 25 years, 30 years or 50 years; but 20 years seems perfectly reasonable. I am still worried, as we all are, about retrospective legislation. But I think that in this case, in spite of what has been said by various noble Lords, I am comforted by the position as explained by the noble and learned Lord and by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
178 Clause 113, page 116, line 1, at end insert —

(a) section 416 of this Act (under which a person taking a charge over a company's property is deemed to have notice of matters disclosed on the companies charges register), or

(b)'

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
1018
Amendment No. 178. In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 451, 452 and 466. Although Amendment No. 178 is to Clause 113, this group of amendments is concerned with the subject matter of Part IV of the Bill —the registration of company charges. The amendments are largely consequential on the new clauses in Part IV that we discussed when considering Amendment No. 129.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
179 Clause 113, page 116, line 7, at end insert—
'(2) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (unregistered companies), in the entry for Part XXIV at the appropriate place insert—

Section 711A

Aboltion of doctrine of deemed notice.

Subject to section 718(3).'.

180 Clause 114, page 116, line 30, at end insert —
'(4A) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different classes of case.'.
181 Page 117, line 44, at end insert—
'(11) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), in the entry relating to Part XXV at the appropriate place insert —

Section 723A

Rights of inspection and related matters.

To apply only so far as this provision has effect in relation to provisions applying by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Schedule.'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 179 to 181. These amendments make minor changes to new Section 723A of the 1985 Act and Schedule 22 to the Act. I do not believe that I need to say anything more at this moment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
182 Clause 115, page 118, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 119.
183 Page 119, line 34, at end, insert—
'Provisions supplementing s. 736.
736A.—(1) The provisions of this section explain expressions used in section 736 and otherwise supplement that section.
(2) In section 736(1)(a) and (c) the references to the voting rights in a company are to the rights conferred on shareholders in respect of their shares or, in the case of a company not having a share capital, on members, to vote at general meetings of the company on all, or substantially all, matters.
(3) In section 736(1)(b) the reference to the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors is to the right to appoint or remove directors holding a majority of the voting rights at meetings of the board on

1019
all, or substantially all, matters; and for the purposes of that provision —

(a) a company shall be treated as having the right to appoint to a directorship if —

(i) a person's appointment to it follows necessarily from his appointment as director of the company, or

(ii) the directorship is held by the company itself; and

(b) a right to appoint or remove which is exercisable only with the consent or concurrence of another person shall be left out of account unless no other person has a right to appoint or, as the case may be, remove in relation to that directorship.

(4) Rights which are exercisable only in certain circumstances shall be taken into account only —

(a) when the circumstances have arisen, and for so long as they continue to obtain, or

(b) when the circumstances are within the control of the person having the rights;

and rights which are normally exercisable but are temporarily incapable of exercise shall continue to be taken into account.
(5) Rights held by a person in a fiduciary capacity shall be treated as not held by him.
(6) Rights held by a person as nominee for another shall be treated as held by the other; and rights shall be regarded as held as nominee for another if they are exercisable only on his instructions or with his consent or concurrence.
(7) Rights attached to shares held by way of security shall be treated as held by the person providing the security —

(a) where apart from the right to exercise them for the purpose of preserving the value of the security, or of realising it, the rights are exercisable only in accordance with his instructions;

(b) where the shares are held in connection with the granting of loans as part of normal business activities and apart from the right to exercise them for the purpose of preserving the value of the security, or of realising it, the rights are exercisable only in his interests.

(8) Rights shall be treated as held by a company if they are held by any of its subsidiaries; and nothing in subsection (6) or (7) shall be construed as requiring rights held by a company to be treated as held by any of its subsidiaries.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (7) rights shall be treated as being exercisable in accordance with the instructions or in the interests of a company if they are exercisable in accordance with the instructions of or, as the case may be, in the interests of —

(a) any subsidiary of holding company of that company, Or

(b) any subsidiary of a holding company of that company.

(10) The voting rights in a company shall be reduced by any rights by the company itself.
(11) References in any provision of subsections (5) to (10) to rights held by a person include rights falling to be treated as held by him by virtue of any other provision of those subsections but not rights which by virtue of any such provision are to be treated as not held by him.
(12) In this section "company" includes any body corporate.'.
184 Page 119, line 47, leave out 'section 736' and insert `sections 736 and 736A'.
185 Page 120, line 8, leave out 'of section 736' and insert `made'.
186 Page 120, line 11, at end insert—
'(5) So much of section 23(3) of the Interpretation Act 1978 as applies section 17(2)(a) of that Act (effect of repeal and re-enactment) to deeds, instruments and documents other than enactments shall not apply in relation to any
1020
repeal and re-enactment effected by regulations made under this section.'.
187 Page 120, line 18, at end insert—
'(6) So much of section 23(3) of the Interpretation Act 1978 as applies section 17(2)(a) of that Act (presumption as to meaning of references to enactments repealed and re-enacted) to deeds or other instruments or documents does not apply in relation to the repeal and re-enactment by this section of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 187. In moving these amendments, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 201 to 203 and 454. Amendments Nos. 182 to 185 make parallel changes, in relation to the definition of a subsidiary, to those we have already discussed in relation to the definition of a subsidiary undertaking. The two terms, which have different purposes under the Bill, overlap to a considerable degree. It is obviously important that where they overlap they do so perfectly. These amendments ensure that.
Amendment No. 187 ensures that the Bill does not unwittingly create a presumption that this new definition of a subsidiary is automatically substituted for the existing definition for the purposes of interpreting pre-existing private instruments which incorporate by reference to the Companies Act definition. Amendment No. 186 makes similar provision in relation to subsequent changes to the definition made by statutory instrument under new Section 736B. The other amendments are consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand that some of the provisions in new Section 736A are a restatement of existing law. But, as I understand it, there are some variants to existing law designed to bring the new Bill into line with the definitions of subsidiaries which we have discussed. My concern is relatively minor. It refers to the rights of shareholders. New Section 736A(4) states:
"rights which are normally exercisable but are temporarily incapable of exercise shall continue to be taken into account".
What exactly does that mean? I do not understand the phrase about a shareholder who has normally exercisable rights which are then temporarily incapable of exercise. I cannot understand under what circumstances that may occur, but no doubt that will be explained. It seems that those rights will continue to be taken into account. I should think that if they are incapable of exercise, they should not be taken into account. I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will be able to clear up my worry on that, but it is rather curious.
My next problem concerns subsection (6):
"Rights held by a person as nominee for another shall be treated as held by the other".
That may be fine but it creates some rather odd problems because the nominee is the person whose name is on the share certificate. Did the noble and learned Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to which amendment he is referring?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I referred to Amendment No. 183. Subsection (6) of new Section 736A, which is on page 73 of the Commons amendment, reads:
"Rights held by a person as nominee for another shall be treated as held by the other".
It is the nominee whose name appears on the share certificate. It is a rather odd concept that one should treat someone whose name is on the share certificate as not holding rights. Obviously it is up to the nominee to decide whether he has an obligation to consult his beneficiary as to what he should do with the voting rights.
My final concern relates to new subsection (10), which is over the page on page 74. It reads:
"The voting rights in a company shall be reduced by any rights held by the company itself".
I find that phraseology rather odd. It is not the voting rights in a company that shall be reduced by any rights held by the company itself because the company itself cannot vote shares which it holds in itself. If it were expressed like that it would be much clearer. It is not that the rights themselves lapse. The rights still exist but they cannot be exercised by the company which holds shares in itself. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can help me with my relatively minor problem.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the tailpiece to the new section (4) reflects a point which was put to the Government by the Law Society, which took the view that the present text is unclear as to how rights are to be treated when they are temporarily incapable of being exercised. There was optimism on this side of the House that the change would make it clear that such rights are to continue to be counted. Perhaps I may give as an example a freezing order made under Part XV of the 1985 Act. If the provision did not exist, a subsidiary might no longer be regarded as such upon an order being made.
The next provision which concerned the noble Lord was that contained in section 736A(6). I apologise for interrupting him but I was not quite clear which amendment he had moved on to. We are aiming at control here rather than questions of ownership. It is necessary to cover cases where shares are held by a nominee on behalf of another; otherwise there would be a loophole. It is for that reason that the provision is covered in that way.
Turning to subsection (10), the "rights" refer back to voting rights. It is a matter of drafting. It is believed that we have got it right, but I understand the point that the noble Lord made. However, I do not believe that there is the difficulty which he suggested.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989
7.5 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1989 No. 1897) be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, perhaps I may say that I have been informed that there are some errors in the drafting of the regulations. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me whether it is the intention to bring the regulations forward in an amended form or in what way the errors will be dealt with.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I confess that the noble Lord has taken me somewhat by surprise. Perhaps I may come back to him on that point, or is an answer a prerequisite for starting our discussion?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I gave notice to the Minister's office that I intended to ask the question because I was anxious that we should know whether or not we were to have a further debate on the issue. Not to worry. I shall not go in detail at this stage into the errors that have been drawn to my attention.
It is hardly necessary for me to tell the House that it is not my intention to divide the House on the Motion. However, I and my noble friends on whose behalf I speak felt that it would be wrong to allow the regulations to go through your Lordships' House without critical comment on the Government's handling of the nation's general practitioners. Those criticisms are on four grounds.
First, we have some major criticisms of the new contract which has in a quite unprecedented way for the first time in history been imposed on general practitioners against their will. Secondly, it has been done crudely by the Secretary of State, who seems to me to gain pleasure from insulting the medical profession gratuitously, indicating an extraordinary degree of personal ignorance about the way in which general practitioners go about their work.
Thirdly, on these Benches we take great exception to the way in which the Secretary of State is using public money to justify his side of the argument with the doctors. I had hoped to produce the advertisement I have with me for the benefit of all those noble Lords who would be on the government side of the House —but there are none apart from the Minister. It is quite scandalous that public money which should be used for the purposes of the National Health Service should be used by the Secretary of State for full-page advertisements justifying his arguments. He may say that the BMA has used its own advertisements. It has indeed. Those advertisements have been paid for from money raised by doctors who believe in the cause that they argue. If the Secretary of State needs to involve himself in costly advertisements, they should be paid for by the Conservative Party and not by the Government. I hope that this is not the last that we have heard of the issue because I believe it to be a scandalous misuse of public money.

1023
Fourthly, I and my noble friends are concerned at the way in which the Secretary of State has dealt with the issue. We are concerned because we fear that it may be a precursor of what may be the Government's plans to impose an unwanted reorganisation on the National Health Service and on a public who time and time again have told the Government that they are convinced that their proposals will provide a worse service to patients.
Dr. Michael Wilson, chairman of the BMA's General Medical Services Committee, has said that the package which is contained in the regulations:
"includes features that are unethical, misguided, ill-conceived, premature and wasteful".
I suppose that one could find other terms, but that is a pretty strong condemnation of the action taken by the Secretary of State against the general practitioners.
Let us face it, opinion polls show upward of 70 per cent. of the general public giving the thumbs down to the White Paper proposals. As concerns the GP contract, in an 82 per cent. poll of general practitioners conducted on the basis of a secret ballot, the contract was rejected by 76 per cent. to 24 per cent. An 82 per cent. poll is a substantial indication of the views held by general practitioners about the way in which they should conduct their own life within their own profession.
The Secretary of State recently suggested that, because the doctors decided against industrial action and mass resignation, they were somehow coming round to accepting the contract that was being enforced upon them. I have no evidence to suggest that that is true or that there has been any change in the views of general practitioners concerning the contract. There should be no criticism of doctors who decide that their duty dictates to them not to take industrial action and not to resign. It is because of their dedication to their services that they have not done so, but do not let the Government imagine for one moment that that somehow or other lessens the strength of feeling against what has been imposed upon them.
If the Secretary of State believed his own claim that general practitioners were changing their view he would proceed to secure the agreement of the BMA rather than acting by edict. He appears to think that they are coming round to his point of view and that if he gives it a little time he will perhaps be able to negotiate a settlement. I do not believe that he believes his own claim. I think that he enjoys the sound and smell of battle. I believe —I say this from my own experience —that this is no way to run a national health service.
Perhaps I may come back to the objections to the contract itself. The main objection is that by increasing the capitation element in the pay formula from 46 per cent. to 60 per cent. the Government are encouraging general practitioners to increase the number of patients on their lists. I am sure that that is a fundamentally wrong decision. When I was Secretary of State from 1976 to 1979 the objective was to bring down the number of patients on GP practice lists. That objective was worked out with the profession because GPs knew that they could
1024
give a better service to their patients —give more time to individual patients —if they could have shorter patient lists. We were working in that direction.
The present Government accepted that objective and succeeded to the extent that average list sizes were down from 2,229 in 1979 to 1,928 in 1989. I hope that they will not be embarrassed if I say that that is a good achievement in the right direction. Of course it has been achieved by an increase in the number of general practitioners, but the new contract gives financial inducement to GPs to increase their lists, thus inevitably reducing the time that a GP has to give to his patients. That is an inevitable result.
A recent study by Wilkin & Metcalfe discovered that as patient lists lengthen from 2,000 to 3,000 patients the average contact time per patient for a general practitioner falls from 30 minutes to 20 minutes a year. There are already 3,000 practices with more than 2,500 patients per GP. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that there is no intention to go back on the process of shortening GP lists. Perhaps she will explain how the new contract will do anything other than lengthen them.
It is encouraging and sensible that an increasing number of women GPs are restricting themselves to lists which are 35 per cent. below the average length. Women GPs are particularly strong in their opposition to the principles of the new contract. In my view that is no wonder; it conflicts with the principle of not having excessively long lists.
I wish to turn now to the gross misrepresentation by the Secretary of State of the performance of general practitioners. It is true that there are good and bad performers. There are in any profession and in any section of a profession. My impression is that general practitioners want to encourage the good performers and to raise the standards of the profession by using such inducements as will persuade the lazy minority to come up to the standards of the best. On balance, this country is very fortunate to have a high percentage of dedicated doctors in general practice. I do not believe that any country in the world has a better standard of general practice than we have in Britain and I do not want to see it lost.
Doctors are incensed —rightly in my view —by what the Secretary of State has said about them. He complains that the doctors have been critical of his proposals both in the contract forced upon them and on a wider front in the NHS White Paper. But I believe that he has brought it upon himself. He behaves as if he always knows best. He is arrogant and often insulting in the language that he uses in discussion and negotiation with and about general practitioners. In my view, his information is often gravely at fault. I want to give five examples.
First, the Secretary of State said:
"The averge GP works an average of 38 hours per week in general practice".
The fact is that GPs spend an average of 73 hours a week on duty, during which time 38 hours spread over the week are spent providing general medical services for patients and a further five hours are devoted to other health-related activities. If the

1025
Secretary of State believes that that is wrong, let him bring the evidence to set up against the assessment already made.
Secondly, the Secretary of State said:
"Doctors will be more available at times convenient to patients —for at least 26 hours a week … Some doctors are very shocked by our suggestion that they should work five days a week and 26 hours a week".
In fact the vast majority of GPs work at least five days a week and spend, as I said, 73 hours on duty. Doctors are rightly concerned that the rigidity which the new contract will impose upon their working pattern will mean that many doctors will be forced to work for an unbroken period of 12 days when they are on call for the two days intervening at the weekend.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State said:
"There will be more professional staff in the surgery such as practice nurses, chiropodists, counsellors and physiotherapists".
But the money available for employing practice staff is to be cash-limited from 1st April 1990. There will be more professional staff in the surgery only if the cash limit is set high enough to pay for them. We shall no doubt come to the issue of cash-limiting general practioners when we come to the Bill, if we are offered a Bill in the Queen's Speech.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State said:
"the average GP receives £65,000 a year".
That is a very unfair statement. It is wrong. This year GPs will earn on average £31,105. The rest of the money that they receive will remiburse them for the expenses that they incur in running a practice. I am thinking of staff salaries, medical supplies, telephone, postage, stationery, professional literature, subscriptions, accountancy expenses, premises, car and depreciation of equipment. Those are all professional responsibilities which enable a GP to do the job required of him. Therefore, to say that the average GP receives £65,000 a year as though he is now in the ranks of the higher paid in industry is grossly unfair. More than half of the money he receives inevitably goes on practice costs.
The fifth and final example that the Secretary of State gave was,
"We will, and must, change bureaucracy".
He has had a good deal to say about bureaucracy. In fact the new contract will not reduce bureaucracy. It will indeed add to the paperwork done by health authorities and GPs. Many of the new regulations will require numerous returns to be made.
I echo the words of Dr. Curtis speaking for the British Paediatric Association. He said that,
"the proposals have been ill-thought out, not properly worked through and I am appalled at the rate at which they are instituted".
But, of course, Mr. Clarke always knows best. I do not know the views of the Secretary of State on the principal issues that so deeply divide the Cabinet, and this is no occasion on which to speculate upon them. So far as I know the Secretary of State is a loyal Minister. I am not certain whether he is still as ambitious as he was. But his pattern of behaviour in handling the medical profession, and this particular issue that I raise tonight, suggest that he
1026
believes that in everything he knows best. He blips the critical doctors as his boss blips all her critics with her handbag. He does not believe in genuine negotiation which, after all, always means a degree of compromise.
It seems at present that he is planning to impose, with the massive majority that exists in another place, a new health package, which is not only rejected by the profession but by the public too. Therefore, I believe that the GPs' contract, and the way in which the Secretary of State has handled it, could well be a precursor of the way in which the Secretary of State will handle the problems relating to the health service.
It was my view that these concerns should be expressed —even though there were few on the Government Benches to hear them —before the Government proceed along their route of conducting policy in relation to the health service regardless of the attitude of the professions and regardless of the attitude of the public.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1989 No. 1897) be annulled.—(Lord Ennals.)
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in his prayer to annul. All of us, I believe, agree that the one thing we are terribly proud of in our National Health Service is our general practitioner and family doctor service. It exists in hardly any country in the world to the extent that it exists here, and it is the envy of many countries. I can speak with some feeling having been born and brought up in Sweden, which is well known for its good medical practice. The one thing Sweden no longer has is a family doctor service. They managed to kill it off after the war. There is nothing they have regretted as much. We have a wonderful service. It is only 7 per cent. of the health service budget, and we want to preserve it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the new contract endangers the position. I am concerned, as he is, that the move is away from a practice allowance to a capitation fee. I believe that the Government have done this because of their obsession with competition. It is like going back to the bad old days at the beginning of the National Health Service when pay was wholly by way of capitation. It was decided long ago that such a system of remuneration destroyed co-operation between GPs. They hardly spoke to one another. The feeling was, "If I let him go to see my patient I am likely to lose the patient and he will get the capitation fee".
The practice allowance was brought in to improve the position. The contract now proposes that the capitation fee should be raised from 45 per cent. of remuneration to 60 per cent. How do we know that it will not be raised again to 70, 80, 90 or 100 per cent., and we are back where we were without co-operation between general practitioners?
This change has two further worrying implications. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it will inevitably be a move towards increased list sizes so as to maximise the doctors' income.

1027
Doctors are human beings. They have all the natural desires to improve their standard of living. During the last 20 years, with the support of the profession and of governments, a reduction of the average list size, as has been stated, has been achieved. We all agree that the ideal list is something like 1,500. That reduction has been wholly beneficial but it will not continue. The increased emphasis on capitation fees will provide an incentive to keep list sizes high and mitigate against taking on new partners.
Despite the reduction in list sizes, people —and many general practitioners —still complain that GPs are too pushed to give adequate time to each individual patient. However, the new contract will also increase the range of services that GPs will be required to provide for their patients. Most of these services are highly desirable. But how are they to be achieved? By cutting further the time available for an individual patient.
Secondly, and this concerns me particularly, there is the impact on the position of women GPs, which will be highly detrimental. As a woman I am delighted that today 22 per cent. of all GPs are women. The ideal we should work towards is that each group practice should have at least one woman partner. Many women GPs work part time in the service because of family commitments, and the new contract has inbuilt disincentives for part-time and flexible working arrangements.
At present for a 20-hour week, plus one night a week on call and every third or fourth weekend on call, the practice allowance is roughly £15,000 a year. Let us assume that the practice pays the female GP £18,000 a year for her contribution. The cost to the practice is £3,000 a year. Under the new arrangements a part-time female GP will bring allowances of only £6,000 a year or less. Under the new arrangements it is not difficult to see that the opportunities for part-time employment are going to contract.
I have a personal interest in this subject. My youngest daughter is a general practitioner. She achieved her part-time partnership a couple of years ago, and she is a partner in a practice. I doubt whether she would have been offered the post if she could not have started until after 1st April 1990, and she is already being pressurised by her partners to take on a full-time commitment. She has three small children. She is a first-class GP, but she cannot at this time commit herself full time. This is yet another incentive for existing partners to increase their lists instead of taking on a female part-time general practitioner.
Finally, I should like to refer to the problems created in the contract by the new system of bonuses for vaccinations and cervical smears. It introduces lower bonuses for 70 per cent. vaccination and 50 per cent. smears and higher bonuses for 90 per cent. vaccination and 80 per cent. smears. This will inevitably favour those GPs who practice in an area of more socially conscious and better educated populations against those practices in socially deprived areas. Yet these are exactly the people who need the sevice most.
1028
Another problem faced by this innovation is how one defines a target population, particularly in areas where there is a great movement of people such as the inner cities. In my county of Oxfordshire, which is not a deprived area, the targets set by the Government were shown to be unrealistic. A review by Dr. Martin Lawrence on the prevention rates in 45 practices found that only one achieved the 90 per cent. target for immunisations. In inner cities, according to Polnay and Horn, only 5 per cent. of children attending child health clinics had completed a full course on schedule.
The Government will no doubt argue —and I would agree —that these figures show the need to take urgent action. However, it will not be done by putting the onus solely on the doctors. There are many good provisions in the new contract —for example, the need to give a proper medical examination to all new patients and the need to visit elderly patients regularly. Those are marvellous things. However, it will not work under the existing conditions. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the Prayer.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in one sense it seems superfluous to be debating these regulations this evening after the Secretary of State has declared his intention to impose them, and the decision of the family doctors' professional bodies not to leave the NHS or to go slow as a result. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in accordance with the usual practice of the House is not going to push his prayer to a vote. If I am right, what the noble Lord has given us —and we must thank him for this —is the opportunity for a few reflections on this less than happy episode in the Government's relations with general practice.
As the noble Lord, said, the Government have taken expensive space in the national press to acclaim the benefits that patients will derive from the new contract. Some of the innovations will be good news for the general public; others which are not mentioned, such as the retirement age of 70, will command wide support. But the government advertisement says nothing of the background issues that led to such bitter conflict with the profession. All that is swept under the carpet.
I was not in favour of the scare tactics adopted by the BMA, but there are a few points which cause legitimate concern. First there is the question of population targets for preventive measures. Although rewards for these have been set within two bands, in my view it remains unfair to link doctors' remuneration to invasive procedures which may go against the wishes and convictions of some of their patients, to say nothing of the widely differing demographic characteristics of different practice populations which can make the targets very difficult to achieve.
There can be little dissent from the value of immunising children or checking on the over 75s. Many doctors will want to move in those directions in any event. However, making payment dependent on the success rate raises both practical and ethical

1029
problems. Patients acquire patient status on a voluntary basis and it is very important that this principle should not be contravened. It is reasonable for GPs to seek to persuade, but their remuneration should not depend on it.
Indicative budgets for drugs aroused comparatively little opposition, and I have always supported the extension of generic prescribing wherever it is sensible with well-tried products. However, it would be quite possible for an efficient general practice to be successful in detecting moderate to severe hypertension in its adult population and to control raised blood pressures, for example, almost entirely with older generic and therefore relatively cheap drugs. But the toll in side effects compared with what might have been expected from more modern and more expensive medication could be considerable and could be hidden from view until possibly revealed by medical audit.
It is worth pointing out to the Government that medical audit may not always go the way they would like in regard to reducing costs but may suggest the need for more, not less, expenditure on one or other aspect of the service under review.
The question of raising the capitation proportion of remuneration to 60 per cent., to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred, is not included either in the government advertisement. I am not as opposed to it as some critics —and that would include the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. There is little doubt that the large, efficient practices will be able to cope partly by laying off part of the workload on an expanding support staff. There are many procedures which can be very well carried out by practice and community nurses, and I for one would like to see an increase in their numbers. In the long run there is no reason why patients should receive less time, given that the total number of doctors and the total number of patients are not going to vary greatly.
There is a very real concern that the smaller practice, with a list of 4,000 to 5,000 patients and with one or two part-time partners who may be women —and I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson —will suffer and be forced to amalgamate or go out of business. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what cushioning, if any, the Government are proposing to provide for them. Smaller practices will often be in deprived or rural areas. Can she spell out what will be done to prevent their going to the wall? Will the contract be modified if this seems to be happening? It is very doubtful, in my view, that a single, inflexible contract on these lines can accommodate the very wide range of different types of practice that we have in this country. I should be grateful to hear something about that matter from the noble Baroness.
Despite these and other anxieties, it is likely that GPs, through their own professional good conscience, will ensure that the contract works as well as possible. That does not mean that it is the
1030
right or the best contract. Apart from the details, there are two major criticisms of it. The first is that its origins lie not in the recent White Paper Working for Patients but in an earlier paper Promoting Better Health which was published in 1987. It is therefore backward-looking and tinkers with the existing arrangements, quite damagingly in some respects, without addressing the radical proposals of Working for Patients which will presumably be embodied in the legislation that we believe we are due to see shortly.
Perhaps even more importantly the proposed contract has had a thoroughly disorienting effect on family doctors and their morale and has distracted their attention and that of their professional bodies and the media from the very interesting possibilities of the budget-holding idea. I am opposed to the Government's proposal for self-governing hospitals for technical reasons which I will not go into here. We shall have plenty of time for that when we get the Bill. On the other hand, the budget-holding proposals seem to imply interesting possibilities for a quite significant shift of emphasis from secondary to primary care, leading possibly to the revival of community hospitals for minor surgery, strokes, convalescence and care of the geriatric and dying—all of which I support. Family doctors in future could have much more control over these kinds of intermediate services on a more human scale for their patients than can be provided in acute hospitals. Those could be very interesting and beneficial developments.
Therefore, particularly on those grounds, I regret that the red herring of the contract has been imposed on this much more important debate, particularly as I believe that it is going to require revision in the light of experience.
There are parts of the regulations that we can all welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has referred to some. However, it would have been better to have left the contentious parts unchanged for the time being in order to get professional support for an expanded primary care and preventive role and to give time for doctors to settle into the system. The Government have rather clumsily elected not to do so, and to fight the profession on two fronts. That is a bad tactic, to say the least. Ultimately the Government have to depend on the profession to implement the reforms in the interests of patients. They simply cannot get round that aspect.
I very much hope to hear from the noble Baroness this evening that the Government do not regard these arrangements as set in concrete for all time. If I hear that from her lips, I for one shall come to the debates on the Bill in a very much better frame of mind.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I came prepared to speak in the debate about the support that I should like to offer for many of the matters in the document which is the subject of this Prayer. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to know that I was very proud to serve under him when he was Secretary of State; I was always very well received by him. I had

1031
not realised that this debate would be more on what I shall call the party political side of general practice than on the principles that lie in the regulations. Noble Lords must therefore forgive me if I concern myself with the principles that are incorporated in the regulations and offer praise where I think it is due.
In order to give the Minister a little succour, I ought to record that one can find quite a lot of general practitioners who are not so distressed about the proposals and the new contract as might be supposed from reading Hansard. Since the White Paper has been mentioned, I ought to put forward my views on it. The health service has changed in two respects since 1948. We must therefore not be surprised that more management is coming in. I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about the Secretary of State's performance in the cockpit of politics, and with the BMA. As I am sure he must have found when he was Secretary of State, we now have two factors that did not exist in the past. No longer do we use British pharmacopoeia remedies; no longer do doctors send their apothecaries to the physic garden. The health service has an enormous international pharmaceutical industry with which it has to deal through a price regulating scheme. So far as I can make out, the scheme is working. However, it will undoubtedly need a good deal of scrupulous surveillance through close management.
We have to admit that the medical profession and the other professions involved in the health service have become better organised, more unionised, than in 1948. I sense that, if we wish to obtain more money from the hard-headed men in the Treasury, it may be wise to make it clear that there has been a period of careful scrutiny, better management and the clearing away of wasteful practices such as the use of expensive medicines or procedures which may not be so good as the users might like to think.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that we are very fortunate with our general practitioner force in this country. I shall not speak for much longer because I shall be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is a general practitioner. Noble Lords may ask why I, as a hospital professor, should be involved with such a document. My excuse is that at Guy's I became very interested in trying to organise an integration of community service and general practitioner service arrangements in the new town of Thamesmead. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will be pleased to know that there we were very keen to use the ancillary people as best we could. Professor Peter Higgins, who ran the show, has told me that he is in favour of the kind of developments that are looming up for general practice. He thinks that they will present an opportunity for better organisation of general practice in the future. We can only hope that all the noble intentions in this document will succeed.
I wish to make a few remarks about the regulations. I find many people who are very cross about the contract have not read the schedules very carefully. In Schedule 1, paragraph 5, it states;
1032
"the services which a doctor is required by sub-paragraph (1) to render shall include the following:—
(a) giving advice, where appropriate, to a patient in connection with the patient's general health, and in particular about the significance of diet, exercise, the use of tobacco, the consumption of alcohol and the misuse of drugs and solvents".
It is good to see the idea of health promotion and health education enshrined in this document. I am very interested in health promotion through the work of the Health Promotion Research Trust, on which I serve. The health promotion field will undoubtedly expand very rapidly as a source of interest and research. Some of our young research workers in Scotland have come up with pretty firm evidence, despite what people may have been reading, that a pregnant woman is highly unlikely to cause any harm to the foetus that she is bearing if she keeps herself down to one standard drink a day. That is information which those general practitioners giving advice to their patients will need. More work is going on to show the tolerance limits about which the population can be advised.
I thought that the recommendations about the elderly were very good. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also liked that part of the regulations. The possibility that general practitioners would make a domiciliary visit, would be concerned about the sensory functions and mobility and preventing accidents in the home were logical and splendid steps forward. I know that many general practitioners do so, but that this is now becoming part of the standard arrangements in general practice appeals to me immensely.
I was also intrigued by Schedule 5 to the regulations. It concerns minor surgery procedures, such as intra-articular and periarticular injections, the treatment of varicose veins and so on. I am very pleased that it is included because people abroad have often thought that our general practitioners were primarily concerned with psychosomatic medicine. It is nice to see that the other part of the medical school curriculum is coming through in this way.
I merely give these observations as a general practitioner watcher. I am relieved to know that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not push this to a vote. I hope that the Government will receive credit for bringing to the forefront matters such as those I have picked out from the document. I hope that they will not be lost in the party political conflagration that appears to be going on in this field at the moment.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's Motion, I feel that I can claim to represent both general practitioners and their patients. Everyone is a patient at some time. The subject therefore concerns everyone. I ask first whether these regulations will improve the well-being of patients; and, secondly, whether they will help the professions which are involved in working towards that end. Although the changes are intended to benefit patients, the overall package may prove to be very unpopular.

1033
Last month Which? magazine showed that adequate time with their GP is what consumers value most of all. I am afraid that these regulations and the proposed changes to the basic practice allowance and capitation element will have the opposite effect. Doctors are to be encouraged to look after more patients and more of their efforts are to be diverted to checking and screening. That may be to the detriment of good clinical care which is the time-consuming part of medicine. If carried out properly it may lead to rational prescribing and rational referral practices using the hospital service.
At present people in large numbers seek alternative medicine because they do not have sufficient time with their GP who perforce must have his mind on the clock. Private medicine is popular largely because people can buy professional time. I am afraid that the proposals will give patients less time to talk to their GP about problems which really worry them.
As a GP I can only echo the deep disquiet with which the regulations are viewed by my colleagues. That is not so much about some of the new services which are to be encouraged but about the way in which consultation with the profession was handled and the unnecessarily directive, bureaucratic and possibly unworkable nature of the regulations.
Almost every week the medical press contains well-thought-out descriptions of the difficulties that will occur if the Government press ahead with the new contract on the present timetable. I am aware that every National Health Service GP originally agreed to provide services according to the terms of service for the time being in force. They have changed from time to time but changes are supposed to be preceded by consultation, with advice from the professions' representatives.
The noble and leaned Lord, Lord Denning, recently expressed a view in a letter to a GP, Dr. John Cormack of Essex. He stated that the new terms may be so different from the existing contract as to constitute a completely new contract which each and every GP should sign individually. I understand that a legal challenge to the new contract is being considered, despite the BMA's original advice that they must accept the contract as it was imposed upon them.
The major change in the new contract is the diminution of the basic practice allowance, the abolition of seniority payments and group practice allowances and the augmentation of the capitation element. I know of no medical voice which has welcomed that. It goes totally against the trend which my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, have mentioned; namely, the trend to encourage small, manageable lists of just under 2,000.
Formerly when changes have been made to the terms of service to further government policy, additional payments have been offered. In this contract, income is first taken away. New services must then be provided in order for the GP to break even. Some doctors, giving good service (but not in rural or deprived areas thus attracting an extra payment) with lists of about 1,500 —which we
1034
believe to be the optimum size —will lose up to £.10,000 of income per year if they do not provide minor surgery, health promotion and child health surveillance and achieve targets in cervical screening and childhood immunisation.
I do not suggest that such things are bad. I suggest that it is unfair to require a doctor possibly approaching retirement, probably well liked by his patients, giving good and caring service, suddenly to have to alter his mode of practice which was until then perfectly acceptable in order not to lose income and to comply with the new regulations. Surely new procedures should attract new money. The basic practice allowance should not be reduced so drastically, possibly never, but certainly not initially.
I make a plea to the Minister that if the changes in pay structure are to be introduced this should be done in stages; that the carrot rather than the stick should be used. Many of the doctors who will lose do not deserve to be penalised.
I should like to raise a few points of detail. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned, there is much concern about the inaccuracy of doctors' lists in inner cities. Therefore, the achievement of targets will be difficult. The population is so mobile that it is difficult to keep track of individual patients. Perhaps the Minister is aware of a recent study carried out by a team at St. Mary's Hospital into cervical screening in north Kensington. It found that in 52 per cent. Of the records of patients on GPs' lists the addresses were inaccurate. It has been said that it is the responsibility of GPs to update their records but that is almost impossible without much additional expense. Can the Minister say how that problem will be addressed?
Many GPs believe that the regulations are too detailed and venture into areas which should be left to professional discretion. How many noble Lords and noble Baronesses over the age of 75 will welcome annual inquiries into their powers of urinary continence? How will each family practitioner committee monitor whether each GP records the 13 items of clinical information required for each new registration before receipt of payment?
All this adds weight to my suggestion to phase the programme slowly and drop items which are unworkable. I suggest that if that is done the profession is much more likely to assist.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest on three counts. First, I have the honour to be an honourary fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Secondly, like many people throughout the country, I have a chronic, long-term disability and I am dependent on the National Health Service. Thirdly, I live in a rural area.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice some of the concerns and wishes of patients. It is a great pity that more diplomacy was not used when introducing the contract to doctors. On the whole, people are suspicious of change and if the Government had discussed their aims with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal

1035
College of Physicians perhaps there would not have been so much fury. It has not helped the general practitioners, the Government or the patients. Many patients feel frustrated and worried.
As in all professions and groups of people, a percentage will be laggards. Perhaps the Government set out to try to call the lagging doctors to order and get them to fulfil their obligations. But I have heard that the contract may not achieve that aim. It has infuriated many of the good and hard-working doctors, who feel that good practice has not been appreciated.
In October 1989 Which? magazine carried out a survey into patients' wishes. Among the top five in the "What I want from my family doctor" list are: "More time explaining about my illness"; "More time explaining about the drugs"; and "More time listening to me". More than eight out of 10 people said that it was important to them to have more information about the specialist to whom their GP was referring them. More than seven out of 10 people said that it was important to have a choice of hospitals to attend.
Shorter waiting lists at the surgery and more helpful receptionists were rated as important possible changes by eight out of 10 people. A nicer waiting area was only considered important by just over half. I should like to ask the Minister whether she can explain how doctors will be able to spend adequate time with their patients if they are being encouraged by the new contract to have more patients on their lists and to spend more time checking well patients when ill patients may be neglected.
Can the Minister give an assurance that patients with long-term disabilities such as kidney disease, diabetes, paralysis, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy and all the other disabling conditions will be well looked after and receive the drugs which they need to maintain a good quality of life? There is concern that no serious thought seems to have been given to those patients who feel that they may become the unpopular unwanted patients when trying to get on a doctor's list.
I give your Lordships an example of how difficult it can be for a disabled person to get on a doctor's list. One afternoon I telephoned the general practitioners committee here in the Riverside Health District to see how many practices were available for a disabled person who uses a wheelchair. The list I was given included several practices which I was told had accessible facilities. That turned out to be untrue when I telephoned. Most of the practices had steps and the ones with access said that they could not take any more patients on their lists. I am sure that they were the popular practices.
With more pressure put on the practices to take more patients, what are disabled people to do if they have no safeguards? I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the money will follow the patient and not the patient follow the money when the patient goes to hospital.
I live in a rural area when in Yorkshire. Many of the GP practices will not be budget holders. Will the general practitioners still have total freedom to refer
1036
a patient to the consultant or hospital which the doctor and patient choose? There is fear that if districts take block bookings of beds the family doctor may lose that vital choice. If a doctor has to send the patient to a consultant chosen by the district and that consultant is not considered the most suitable for the patient, all trust among patient, doctor and district will break down. If the Minister can make a statement about that this evening she will help many doctors and patients who have genuine concern about that matter.
In rural areas it is vital that there should be no curtailing of cross-boundary flows. The doctor knows which consultants do good work and sees the good and the bad results when the patients return from hospital. There is very great fear that the districts will hold the purse strings and may dictate where the patients are sent. That would be a passport for the bad family practitioners to sit back and let that happen while the good GPs would become more and more frustrated.
It would be quite unfair if a financial or any other type of penalty were imposed upon practices which opt not to be budget holders. Some GPs have over-prescribed tranquillisers with dreadful results and that should be corrected. However, no GP should be penalised in any way for exceeding indicative drug budgets so long as treatment is being given in a responsible and reasonable manner.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the contract for women GPs to make it more flexible. Women GPs can be of great value in a practice when women patients may desire to see a woman doctor.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for giving us the chance to bring to your Lordships a few points of concern this evening. It would be a serious state of affairs if the conflict between general practitioners and the Government continues. For the sake of patients, I hope that there will be a happy ending and that all people involved will swallow their pride and put the real needs of patients first.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must apologise for coming in at this stage. However, earlier this week I went to the Chief Whip's Office to put my name down for this debate and was told that there was not a list. That is why I am not on the list this evening.
I speak this evening in sorrow rather than anger because I believe that the Secretary of State missed an opportunity. He is like a general who was in a way in a position to win a battle and proceeded to take the necessary steps to lose it.
If the White Paper suggests that we shall have certain changes in the National Health Service, those changes are predicated on the co-operation of general medical practitioners. I cannot see how the Minister can start by placing practitioners in the position where they are utterly opposed to him, not only on the new arrangements but on the basic arrangements. Therefore, I am sorry not only about that but I am sorry that we shall not divide the House this evening. The Minister should be made to go back and negotiate and try to improve the situation.

1037
I say that because as the debate within the profession has crystallised it is apparent that there are about three issues on which the profession is very much up in arms. The first is the increased capitation fee and the fear that there will be large lists and less time. There was a suggestion by the negotiators that the Minister should reduce the upper limit, which is now 3,500, to 2,500. He may not wish to be as drastic as that. However, after the profession had voted against the contract, the Minister should have seen the negotiators again and tried to see in what way the Government could meet the profession. My view is that a reduction in the upper limit would have been a gesture suggesting that the Government are as concerned as the profession about large list sizes and are prepared to see that that does not happen. I think the Minister missed an opportunity.
We know something about large list sizes. I started in practice in 1950. In 1961 when I went on the LCC I had 3,500 patients and I was specialising in midwifery. When I could not actively serve on the LCC doing that, I gave up the midwifery and I gradually reduced the practice to 2,000. When I first reduced the practice I had financial difficulties until there was the charter. The charter, which gave me seniority allowances and matters like that, made life much more tolerable for people like me. I believe that 2,000 patients is a good list. You can handle that number.
I am quite amazed at all this talk about the days and hours that doctors work. I worked six days a week from 1950 until 1983 but I gave up working on Saturdays in 1983 because my wife had been badgering me to do so. I did that when I was 70 years old. I confess that I was sorry I did not give up Mondays instead of Saturdays because Saturday was my best practice day from the point of view of the patients. This idea of suggesting the number of hours that doctors give patients is nonsense. Doctors give full time to their practices and the Government should react accordingly.
The other way the Minister shot himself in the foot is on the question of targets. Targeting is sensible, but it is clear from all the information that there will be areas where targeting will be very difficult. The Minister ought to have kept the item of service fee at a lower level than it is now and have the target as a bonus. What will happen as a consequence of merely paying the bonus is that the best will be made the enemy of the good.
If you are in an inner city practice and you know, because of the changes, that you are never going to reach your target, there is no incentive to go out of your way to carry out immunisations, and so on. On the other hand, if there was an item of service payment there would be some incentive to go out of your way to add to your practice income.
These are two ways, therefore, that the Minister could have met the profession and where, as a result of discussions, the negotiators could have said, "We have had concessions from the Minister which improve the contract. We suggest that our first proposal should be signed. We have improved it
1038
even more than before. Will you now agree to it?" The Minister would probably have carried the profession if he had taken that attitude. Therefore, I should like to hear the Minister say that she will inform her right honourable friend that it will be wiser for him to try to meet the profession half-way. Unless he does that we are going to have more problems than we need.
I give another example. The suggestion in the White Paper is that we should have family practitioner committees with only one doctor on them. The FPCs on this contract are given many powers. It reduces opposition from the profession if doctors are well represented on the FPCs. The Government ought to be thinking along those lines in a positive and not a negative way.
There is a large government majority in the Commons and it is easy to impose the will of the Secretary of State by using that majority, but that is not sensible. I know the Minister cannot make such promises this evening, but I hope she can agree to inform her right honourable friend that he should, so to speak, step back a little and give more thought to how to bridge the gap that at present exists between the Government and the profession.
8.14 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, listening to this debate I am increasingly being drawn to the suspicion that the Secretary of State has brought on himself a great deal more obloquy than he needed. It is not only my noble friend Lady Robson, with whom I agree entirely, who believes this contract contains some good points. That view is quite widely held around the House, but it has not produced a good reaction.
Listening to the Secretary of State talking about doctors I am led to reflect, first, that there may be worse things than to have the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in charge. Secondly, this Government rave not been very fortunate in their relations with the professions. Indeed, when they complain about their experience with the professions or with public service workers it sometimes reminds me of King Henry VIII in a state of hurt bewilderment lamenting h is misfortune in meeting with such ill-conditioned wives. Henry genuinely wanted to know the answer to that question. It was a rather risky thing answering King Henry's questions. I hope our situation is a little safer than that.
The problem we are suffering from here is one of philosophy. The Secretary of State in his speech to the Tory Reform Group avowed that he had a philosophy and that it was the same as this Government were bringing to all the public service professions. A philosophy in politics is a little like hypertension. We can mostly live with it, but it needs controlling by a daily dosage of real life. It is this controlling by the daily dosage on which the Minister is possibly getting a little short.
I have been re-reading the Minister's speech to the Tory Reform Group. He insists on three points regarding this philosophy, all of which are relevant to why he has got into so much trouble tonight. First, he insists on shifting power from producers to

1039
consumers. The Liberal Democrats are all in favour of consumers, but if a noble Lord who, for the sake of argument, runs a bank were to hear an academic at present on this side of the House coming to the Dispatch Box and insisting that banks should be rearranged to increase the power of pupils against tutors, he might feel a certain amount of bewilderment. You cannot transfer models from one place to another like that. Circumstances vary.
Secondly, the Secretary of State insists on competition. Again, on these Benches we have nothing against competition, but the Secretary of State was once described —I think it was in the Sunday Times—as a person whose instinct, faced with a problem, was to throw competition at it. That is the problem. In the thinking of the Secretary of State, so far as I can follow, the increase in the element of capitation fees represents the element of competition. GPs are being encouraged to compete with each other in order to increase their list sizes. The object of competition, as the Secretary of State understands it, is to increase what he understands by efficiency.
I have attempted previously to draw attention in this House to the inadequacy of this Government's understanding of the word "efficiency". It would be an exaggeration to say that they use it simply as synonymous with "cheapness", but it would be rather less of an exaggeration than I would wish to see. In this philosophy there seems to be a real conflict with professional standards. It is where these two languages meet that there appears to be a misunderstanding between the Government and the professions because this leaves out two professional standards. One —the concern with quality —gives many professionals a definition of efficiency entirely the opposite of the Government's definition. The other is a concern with standards of service.
Where there is such a conflict of language there has to be give and take; there has to be dialogue. The language of professionals has in some cases perhaps been too indifferent to the issue of cost. Some correction is taking place in that regard, and I believe that it is needed.
However, adjustment has to take place on both sides if dialogue is to come in. The capitation fee seems to have been the overwhelming centre of criticism today. It is the area of competition which encourages the building up of bigger lists and gives bigger rewards to those who do so. It has been pointed out many times that it will encourage GPs to spend less time with patients. That is the opposite of what we mean by efficiency. It sounds a little like James Bond's recipe for running a whorehouse. You need a quick through-put like a casino.
I shall mention a few cases where I believe this situation will be liable to cause particular trouble, one of which has not been mentioned so far tonight. That is the case of academic medicine, which is of considerable concern to a number of my colleagues. I know that there is provision in regulations for those doctors who also have a teaching commitment. I must declare an interest because my own doctor is one of them. But there is an adamant insistence that they must be available in their surgeries four days a
1040
week. People who try to do two jobs know that there is a constant struggle for adjustment. One cannot absolutely guarantee that there will not be an emergency at the other end of the line and that one will not have to reorganise because, for example, a colleague is ill.
There is not enough flexibility in the arrangements for GPs who are also engaged in teaching. That is a pity. Speaking from experience, I believe that it adds something to a GP's ability to understand and communicate with his patients. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Robson said concerning women doctors, and that is the only reason I am not going to say it all again. I do not think I could say it better.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I am concerned about rural practices. I know that negotiation is still continuing on that matter. I hope that negotiation will be conducted with a little less philosophy. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about records. I once had the experience of canvassing in an area close to the one he has described on a brand new electoral register which was already 20 per cent. out of date. You cannot do any better than that.
What is going to happen when the pressure to increase list sizes has been in operation for some time? Are we to get a great number of bigger lists and therefore fewer doctors? Is this in fact a covert drive for saving by reducing the number of doctors? I think that is probably not the case. On the other hand, if it is not that, then it is a procedure for the weakest to go to the wall in order to encourage those who can build up big lists and drive out those who cannot.
The Secretary of State believes that this will be competition inducing the success of the best. What many of us wonder is whether it may be competition leading to the success—as we would see it —of the worst.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions, many of which have been made with the benefit of practical experience. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the preliminary point he raised with me as regards errors in drafting took me by surprise. I certainly have not received notice of his question and I am not aware of any such errors. However, I shall look into the matter.
In the course of our debate this evening we have ranged widely over the field and perhaps in one or two cases, outside it. However, the debate has been both interesting and instructive: interesting because we have had a useful examination of those parts of the new contract which have proved controversial; and instructive because I now appreciate more than ever the extent to which there is a continuing misunderstanding and misrepresentation of many of the Government's objectives.
In launching the public information campaign about changes in the family doctor service, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear his support for the general practitioners' service. In

1041
these GP contracts we are setting a framework to take the service into the 1990s. With these changes we want to see a family doctor service where all GPs reach the standards of the best and provide a wider range of quality services to patients. I believe that we are all united in that aim.
After the most thorough review of primary health care involving three years of consultation and debate with the public and the profession, we are finally moving towards improved services on the ground. Informing the public is an important part of that process. It is no good changing the GPs' contract to introduce more and improved services and greater patient choice unless the public knows about it. For that reason the Govenment produced a public information leaflet setting out the main changes that we are introducing backed up by advertisements in national and local newspapers.
We have started the campaign now because we want the public to have as much notice as possible of what to look for from their family doctor. Some practices already provide all the new services, but unfortunately not all of them. General practitioners in the latter category will be reviewing their position in the light of the new contract. It will do no harm if their patients are better informed and bring a little pressure to bear to encourage an improvement in services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, criticised the way in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has conducted consultations concerning the new contract. The noble Lord said that it would worsen services to patients. And he expressed regret that the contract is being "imposed", as he put it. The new contract will improve services to patients. It will do so by raising the quality and increasing the range of services available; for example, by introducing new payments for child health surveillance and minor surgery. The contract would also help patients by increasing the information available about the services that general practitioners provide and by making it easier to change doctor if the patient is dissatisfied.
We on these Benches regret that it has been impossible to reach agreement on the new contract. It is not for want of trying by the Secretary of State. Since the White Paper promoting better health was published in November 1987, there have been over 100 hours of face-to-face discussions with the profession's representatives. Indeed, agreement was reached with those representatives on 4th May. In those circumstances my right honourable friend had no choice but to proceed with implemention. I was relieved to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that many GPs support the contract. That has also been my experience.
It is interesting to note that the contract agreed with the GPs' leaders is now being refuted. The same leaders are the ones who were re-elected after the rejection or refuting of the contract. The Government are convinced that this is the best deal for both patients and GPs. We believe that they will come to recognise the benefits once the new contract is in operation.
1042
We do not believe that an increase in capitation will lead to an increase in the average list size. With a static population an increase in GP numbers of over 400 every year and with plenty of applicants for practice vacancies, the average list size must continue to decline. Some GPs may wish to build up larger lists to increase their income, but patients will not join or remain on the list of a GP who takes on so many patients that he or she can no longer provide good quality services. That is our interpretation of competition.
Perhaps it is only fair to quote that the last survey of GPs' workload which took place in 1985–86 showed that the average family doctor worked 38 hours a week in general practice, including the calls answered while on call. The average doctor was on call for a further 31 hours but not actually called out. Nearly a quarter worked fewer than 30 hours a week in general practice. A Kent University study showed that only part of the extra time released by falling lists is spent on patients. The rest is spent on increased leisure. The number of practice staff, nurses and receptionists has increased by more than 70 per cent. since 1977.
Taking all these factors together, it is difficult to see how the new contract will add to the individual GP's workload. Indeed most of the new duties required by the new contract can be carried out by professional practice staff, such as nurses. In this connection one of the major features of the new contract is the removal of restrictions on the recruitment of practice staff and the increased investment in this resource. All the trends which I have described illustrate how we now have an important opportunity to improve general practice. The resources are there. There are more doctors and more practice staff. The contract provides the impetus.
In areas of high mobility, GP's lists and family practitioner committees' records do not perhaps match as well as in other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, suggested that records were inaccurate. The computerisation of FPCs is already improving matters. The new contract will be an added impetus to get and keep records up to date. In the case of the new target payments which rely on good records, there will be time for the information that is needed to be made available to both GPs and family practitioner committees.
It was suggested that some GPs will lose money no matter how hard they work. The new contract will provide opportunities for all GPs to generate income from providing new services such as minor surgery and health promotion clinics. The great majority of GPs who provide the services that patients need will not lose from this contract. Indeed those who already provide these services will be financially better off under the new contract without increasing their workload. There are a few who in spite of providing comprehensive services could experience a drop in income.
To give these GPs time to adjust, we shall introduce a transitional payments scheme to help bridge the gap between old and new income for a period of two years. This will allow time for two

1043
things to happen; first, for the rural practice payments scheme to be revised to target the money better at the truly rural practices, some of which have small lists which they cannot increase; and, secondly, for the GPs in question to develop other health care activities such as hospital work which provide additional income. Perhaps the academic GPs might also come into this category. It must be remembered that small list GPs —those with a list size of 1,000 to 1,300 —are not working full time; yet under the present scheme they earn the same amount of basic practice allowance, group practice allowance and seniority payment as GPs with a full list of 2,000 or more.
Only the fund for practice staff and premises improvements is to be cash limited. The Government have undertaken to increase investment in these areas. There will be more money and it will be better targeted. Under present arrangements, FPCs have little control over where the money goes. The Government want to improve services in areas of greatest need such as inner cities. The new arrangements will enable that to happen.
On the subject of inner cities, I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for drawing to my attention the studies about coverage rates for childhood immunisation. She admitted, however, that these studies must be used with caution. I know of one study by the Public Health Laboratory Service which showed that high coverage levels can be reached in areas of deprivation. It may be helpful if I make clear that we have introduced a lower target coverage level of 70 per cent. for childhood immunisation. This, we believe, is within the reach of all GPs, because national uptake rates for the childhood vaccines are all currently above that level. We are, however, aware of the difficulties faced by doctors in deprived areas. That is why we are introducing a deprived areas allowance specifically to recognise those difficulties.
I turn now from inner cities to rural areas. Clearly, practice in truly rural areas has features which should be recognised in the remuneration system. We and the professions' leaders agree on the need for support for such practices. This support should be better targeted than at present. That is why we will ask the Central Advisory Committee on Rural Practice Payments to revise the present system. In the meantime the current scheme will continue.
A number of noble Lords referred to women doctors. I am happy to confirm our strong belief that women doctors are an asset to partnerships. A number of patients prefer to see women doctors. In fact the number of women doctors in practice has increased by more than 75 per cent. since 1977. Women now form more than 40 per cent. of all trainee GPs. The trend is clearly towards more women doctors. The new contract will support and encourage that trend; first, by making it easier for women doctors to take up part-time contracts; and secondly, by making it easier for them to employ a locum when on maternity leave. I find hard to understand the suggestion that women doctors will be worse off as a result of the new contract.
We must acknowledge a limit to what the Government can do for women doctors. After all,
1044
GPs are independent contractors. Women doctors must continue to fight their corner for satisfactory partnership agreements. It is not for the Government to interfere in such matters but we believe that we have made it easier for women doctors to play a greater part in general practice.
I listened carefully to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about budget holders and the worries of patients in rural areas. The regulations do not address the question of practice budgets. They are in fact outside the provisions of this statutory instrument. Perhaps I may write to her on the matter shortly. However, in relation to her question about services for the disabled, I can say that all the changes to the GPs' contract will benefit disabled patients. In particular we are making easy access for wheelchairs a requirement in practice premises in future. In addition, there will be annual check-ups for elderly patients who want them, but these may take place in their own homes.
It was suggested that the contract would introduce increased bureaucracy. I must point out that more than £1 billion is spent on the family doctor service. That is taxpayers' money and the doctors must be accountable for how it is spent. That accountability will be achieved in a number of ways, none of which is particularly burdensome. In the first place, GPs must agree their surgery hours with the FPC. By that means we shall ensure that surgery hours are convenient to patients rather than to the doctor. Secondly, FPCs are to receive annual reports from the doctors about their lists. That will enable FPCs to judge how well services are provided and to identify areas where improvements are needed. Lastly, there is the doctors' remuneration.
No one can object to a system whereby the FPC satisfies itself as to the services provided before payments are made. That means that GPs must make claims for certain payments. The bureaucracy involved is the minimum consistent with the proper stewardship of expenditure. I can assure noble Lords who fear that the contract is set in concrete that this is not so. We shall of course monitor its effectiveness in delivering more health promotion and disease prevention. If further improvements are necessary we shall, of course, be happy to introduce them.
Perhaps before finishing my response I should refer to the Which? report which was mentioned by several speakers in the debate. The report suggested that patients want more time with their GPs. The new contract will achieve that aim. As I said before, there will be more practice nurses and counsellors and this will enable the whole practice to extend its listening time. Indeed, many of the problems which patients brińg to their doctor may well be better dealt with by a nurse or a counsellor. Moreover, as the family doctor service becomes more competitive, so doctors will recognise the importance of ensuring that their practices have the time to listen to patients—otherwise patients will vote with their feet because it will now be easier to change one's doctor.
Perhaps I should reiterate that consultation has been going on for 18 months with well over 100 hours of discussion taking place, including meetings with Ministers. All aspects of the revision to the GPs'

1045
terms of service have been the subject of detailed correspondence with the GMSC.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that the legality of these changes brought the regulations into question. I should say that this is an observation which does not apply to the relationship between general practitioners and the National Health Service. That relationship is a statutory arrangement resulting in the main from the application of the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (General and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1974, as amended. Therefore the relationship is not governed by the private law of contract and the Government are quite satisfied that the form of the amended arrangements is perfectly lawful.
I have taken some time to go through the many interesting points which were raised in order to remove, I hope, many of the misunderstandings about our proposals. Once people understand what the new contract would mean for them, and what it would mean for doctors in that they will be able to provide an up-to-date efficient service to their patients, many of the reactions which were initially based on misleading propaganda will, I believe, disappear.
It is no exaggeration to say that the new contract represents the most significant change in the family doctors' services since the National Health Service was set up. I believe that it will benefit patients and doctors alike. I therefore urge the House to support the regulations before us.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in conclusion perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I should also like to express my thanks to the noble Baroness for her reply. I shall make but three brief comments. First, it is noticeable that except for the noble and loyal Baroness, Lady Elliot, there has been no presence on the Back Benches to support the Minister. That is a sad situation. She must have felt very lonely. And it is, perhaps, a precursor of the debates which will follow in the next few months. However, I know and understand that the noble Baroness feels happy with her Front Bench support.
I should like to make a further point to the Minister. She said that what is proposed will improve general practice and that once people understand it they will realise that the Government were right. Of course GPs do understand this; indeed, they probably understand it better than the Minister or myself or anyone else in this House, except for the two GPs who have spoken in the debate.
Can the Minister explain why, having analysed the matter and having been involved with the representatives in negotiation, there is still a three-to-one ratio of GPs who reject what is proposed at the end of the day? In my view the question as to whether their judgment is right is worth further thought.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to a party political commitment. This is only a party
1046
political issue because the Secretary of State, in my view, decided that he was not seeking consensus. If he had been able to achieve agreement, the issue would not have arisen in the way that it has. I must stress that the criticisms which I mentioned this evening have all been pressed upon me by general practitioners. In no sense have I accepted a party brief in speaking this evening. The Minister and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State should consider whether they are right in assuming that after all these months of negotiation they have it right and that everyone else has got it wrong.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, it is not my intention to press the matter to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
8.45 p.m.
Further consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
188 Clause 117, page 120, line 40, leave out 'section' and insert `sections 75B(4A) and'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 188.
With the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 189, 190, 191, 193, 194 and 197. Perhaps I may also respond to Amendment No. 190A, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 190.
The key amendment in this grouping is Amendment No. 189, which limits to two the number of extensions that may be made to the initial 20-day period for considering a merger prenotification: the first an extension of 10 working days, and the second of 15 working days. All the remaining amendments in the group stem from this change.
At present, the Bill provides for an unlimited number of 10-day extensions to the period for considering prenotifications. The purpose of this provision was, of course, to provide adequate time for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider the most complicated or difficult cases. Our firm intention was that, in practice, the vast majority of cases would be considered within the initial 20-day period. However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked us to reconsider this because of the indefinite timescale it would present to the companies concerned. My noble friend the then Secretary of State agreed to look again at this point, and further comments from practitioners have convinced the Government that the technical possibility of unlimited extensions would create unnecessary uncertainty for business.
The other amendments in the group, which are consequential upon limiting the number of extensions, may be briefly described. Your Lordships may have noted that the second extension

1047
is to be five days longer than the first. That is because limiting the number of extensions creates the theoretical possibility that the Director General of Fair Trading will not be able to advise the Secretary of State on a merger in time for the Secretary of State to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before the end of the prenotification period. To cover this possibility, Amendment No. 193 provides that the Secretary of State may, during the last five days of the second extension, refer the merger even in the absence of the director general's advice. This extra five days is built in to the 15-day second extension to give the Secretary of State time to reach a decision. We think that he could probably do this anyway, but the amendment puts the point beyond doubt.
Now that there is to be a maximum limit on extensions, negotiation of divestment undertakings under the new provisions in Clause 118 could go beyond the time limit for considering a prenotified merger. In such circumstances, we would need to retain the power to refer the merger because the negotiations fail, and this will also provide an incentive for bidders to give undertakings.
Amendments Nos. 188 and 190 therefore preserve the power to make a reference while undertakings are still being sought. However, if a bidder formally declines to give undertakings, the clock starts again and a reference must then be made within 10 days or the power to refer will lapse.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 191 and 197 deal with the giving and receiving of notices for that purpose; and Amendment No. 194 provides that the periods concerned are to be measured in working days (leaving out weekends, and so forth) just as for the prenotification period.
I now turn to Amendment No. 190A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It appears to propose that cases where the Secretary of State is seeking undertakings, in lieu of making a merger reference to the MMC, the Director General of Fair Trading should be able to make a reference if the parties decline to give suitable undertakings and if the European Commission is investigating the merger under the competition provisions of the EC treaty.
I suspect that that is not the effect intended by the noble Lord, but it is in any event an unnecessary amendment. It is not the place of the director to make merger references. His role is to provide advice on the matter for the Secretary of State. Nor would it be necessary to reserve to the Secretary of State the power described in the amendment. We do not consider it likely or desirable that the decision to make a reference should be affected by the knowledge that a merger was also being investigated by the European Commission under Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty as they are currently applied.
There will be nothing to be gained from keeping open in that way the option of making a merger reference some time after the prenotification period had expired. If a reference is warranted, it should be made straight away. Any conflict with the European Commission's conclusions can be resolved after the MMC has reported; otherwise the Secretary of State
1048
should announce his decision not to make a reference.
I hope that I have clearly expressed the Government's view on that matter, including our reaction to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a trifle lost on the procedure but I shall talk until someone tells me that I am out of order. I am doubly lost because I wanted to talk about the Government's amendments. I take it that I am still in order when I say how much I approve of them. They represent an important step forward. That is stage one.
I am rather puzzled that the Government have decided to reply to my amendment before I have moved or argued it. I am disappointed that it has been rejected before I have argued it. That implies that even my brilliant powers of persuasion will not persuade the Government. It may well be that we are all a bit tired. Having said that, let me say what my amendment is about. Essentially what lies behind my amendment —I was advised that this was an acceptable way to do it —is that I wish to raise the European dimension and remind your Lordships of it when considering not merely the present but the future state of mergers.
I should like to make two or three points. First, I remind your Lordships that, separate from the current debates on the European dimension on competition policy, I strongly believe that he Commission has a great many powers under Articles 85 and 86 and that it has been wrongly persuaded that it cannot use them in competition policy. I have expressed that view before, as have other noble Lords. I want it to go on the record.
Having read, mostly in the newspapers, about what is happening with regard to the European dimension, I am worried about the way in which the Commission may interfere with our approach to competition. The logical point, which I have made before —and having made it, that will be enough for me this evening —is that if any kind of competition or merger problem is dealt with at the European level and is regarded as unacceptable there, that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned. The problem which worries me, and which the amendment seeks to address, arises when a merger is regarded as acceptable at the European level. It seems to me that the director or the Secretary of State should still remain able to say that it may be acceptable at the European level but it is not acceptable at the British level. That is the other way round, as it were.
I do not remotely believe that at this stage the Government will say that they agree with that. I am merely pointing out that it is a serious problem that will affect company law in the future. I tabled the amendment to remind us of that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, may wish to say a few words, and I shall say no more until he has spoken.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we on these Benches accept the general theme of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to Government Amendment No. 190.
I tried my best at the earlier stages of the Bill to obtain some references to Articles 85 and 86. I have been involved with them since the middle 1960s in a professional way and in other capacities. I am always disappointed when we receive a somewhat technical answer from Ministers about the value of considering the principles of those articles in relation to merger questions. Beyond saying that I want to have that point on the record, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the direction in which he is proceeding in his speech. That is all I wish to say.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, this is the second day running that an amendment tabled by a noble Lord who is not a member of the Government has been spoken to in advance by a Minister in the course of moving one of his earlier amendments. It caused confusion yesterday and it has caused a little confusion today. Surely it is also undesirable that a noble Lord's amendment should be anticipated before he has had a chance to move it. I hope we can establish a firm rule that Ministers will not speak in advance of amendments tabled by other noble Lords before those noble Lords have had a chance to move their amendments.
9 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' permission to make a further intervention on this matter because I owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to respond to him. I wish to respond also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Articles 85 and 86 have been used by the European Commission from time to time, although there are some doubts about the occasions when it can intervene, and we believe that the Commission should be thinking of a wider, more comprehensive arrangement. We have reserved our position on whether we shall agree to what is proposed until we see in detail what is proposed. We shall be looking for improvement in the present situation. Until we see that, we are maintaining a reservation on the principle of regulation, but if it represents a measurable improvement on the present situation we shall want to be in favour of it.
As I understand it, the present draft allows member states to prohibit certain mergers, intervening on grounds of legitimate interest. As currently drafted, those include public security, media diversity and prudential rules. Other non-competition interests may be permissible so long as they are consistent with the member states' Community obligations. Those for the moment are all matters for discussion and no new regime has yet been agreed.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise, but could he give an indication what directive he is referring to? He
1050
has the most charming habit of referring generally to many matters. Perhaps he could particularise.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that it is the competition directive. I do not know what number it is and I do not think it is difficult to specify which directive I am talking about, but I assume that it is the same one as the one which the Minister mentioned.
Subject to that, perhaps I may thank the Minister for his reply, which I found most encouraging. I accept that these are early days and hope that when the time comes your Lordships will have a chance to become more involved in what happens next at the European level. We are broadly in agreement on the lines on which we ought to go and therefore I shall not move the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
189 Clause 117, page 121, line 16, leave out from 'notice' to end of line 19 and insert—

'(a) extend the period mentioned in subsection (2) of this section by a further ten days, and

(b) extend that period as extended under paragraph (a) of this subsection by a further fifteen days.'

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 189.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
190 Clause 117, page 121, line 23, at end insert —
'(4A) If the Director gives to the person who gave the merger notice (in this subsection referred ':o as "the relevant person") a notice stating that the Secretary of State is seeking undertakings under section 75G of this Act, section 75A(3) of this Act does not prevent a reference being made to the Commission unless —

(a) after the Director has given that notice, the relevant person has given a notice to the Director stating that he does not intend to give such undertakings, and

(b) the period of ten days beginning with the first day after the notice under paragraph (a) of this subsection was received by the Director has expired.'

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 190.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
[Amendment No. 190A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 190, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
191 Clause 117, page 121, line 24, leave out under subsection (3) or (4)' and insert `by the Director under subsection (3), (4) or (4A)'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 191.

1051
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
192 Clause 192, page 121, line 37, after 'notice', insert 'or any connected person'.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 192. With leave, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 198 to 200. I may incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but I intend to refer to Amendment No. 195A tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which would leave out Amendment No. 195.
These amendments put the connected persons of a prenotifier under a similar duty to provide true and accurate information but remove any obligation to give information which they could not have known. The provisions of Clause 117 introduce a new procedure under which a properly prenotified merger cannot be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission once the allowed period for consideration has elapsed. This system requires safeguards against the provision of false or late information.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 196 improve these safeguards by extending the director general's powers to reject a prenotification and the Secretary of State's power to refer a merger although the allowed period has elapsed to cover in both situations cases where the "connected person" of a prenotifier has given false or misleading information. Where a connected person is involved in a merger or gives information about it, that needs to be covered by these provisions; otherwise they could be avoided, for example, by channelling false information on a prenotification through a subsidiary.
Amendment No. 195 on the other hand prevents a prenotified merger from being referred after the period for consideration has expired if the reason for the late reference was the late discovery of material information but that could not have been known to the prenotifier and connected persons. This is because it would be unfair if new information which emerged afterwards and could not have been known by the notifier were to throw a merger open to reference.
Amendment No. 195A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would remove this provision, so that if any information material to the merger is not disclosed the merger may still be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, even if that information could not have been known to those involved. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is concerned that we should retain the power to make a reference where there is new material information of any kind.
We believe that there is a balance to be achieved here between, on the one hand, proper consideration of mergers which may affect the public interest and, on the other hand, allowing companies to go about their business unhindered. We consider that
1052
Amendment No. 195A shifts this balance too far in one direction. A prenotifier who provides all the information available to him at the time in good faith should not then have a completed and successful merger reopened for scrutiny because of facts he could not have known and which another party has failed to disclose. We consider that this would create undue uncertainty for the businesses involved. In practice these provisions will allow proper consideration of the ramifications of a proposed merger at the time. If new material facts which could not have been known at the time can at some future date lead to an investigation, the whole basis of the system for prior clearance of mergers could be undermined.
Amendment No. 198 provides a definition of a connected person for these purposes as an associated person or a subsidiary. Amendment No. 200 provides that the definition of "subsidiary" is that given in Section 75(4K) of the Act as introduced by Clause 120. This definition covers ownership by an individual as well as by a company.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, I would ask whether we may have some comment on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Airedale. They concerned noble Lords on the government Front Bench speaking to amendments which are to be moved but which have not been moved from these Benches. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that he hoped that he understood the noble Lord, Lord Peston, correctly. I suggest that he would have a better chance of understanding the noble Lord correctly if he waited to hear what he had to say.
I do not know what the strict procedural position is, but I think that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, calls for some comment. Perhaps the position could be clarified.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may reply because it is a sensible point, if I may say so. I recognise the difficulty in which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Baroness find themselves. The problem has been that the amendments were agreed in groups. Then at a late stage amendments to particular amendments within the groups have been tabled. It has proved difficult to disentangle the groups because of the late tabling of amendments.
Having said that, I have done my best to reply specifically to the points raised. I think the position is different when an amendment seeking to change a Commons amendment is tabled, as compared with an amendment simply to delete a Commons amendment. That is the same as seeking to negative the agreement to the amendment that may be proposed from this Dispatch Box. I recognise the difficulty and I think it arises out of the arrangements that I have referred to. However, I certainly think it is right for Ministers to seek the permission of the House to reply to a particular amendment within the grouping, when that is appropriate.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I do not wish to prolong the discussion at this time of night. However, I think the noble Lord will be aware that, what with the nature of some of the amendments which have come back from the Commons in vast numbers and the late placing of government amendments, we feel that the position of the Opposition is now being made almost impossible by the way the Government are conducting their business.
Lord Peston: My Lords, one day I shall learn how to do these things. However, I shall do the best I can now. Let me again say that it is not my desire nor that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel to undermine what the Government are doing in this set of amendments. What the Government are doing seems to me to make perfectly good sense. However,
I am in a slightly difficult position because I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, expressed my points better than I had prepared them myself before he rebutted them. That puts me at an even bigger disadvantage than would otherwise be the case.
I have two simple points to make. One concerns where we disagree. We disagree at a fundamental level. My view of all mergers is that they should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before they go ahead, rather than that they should be not against the public interest. In other words, I think the balance is all wrong on the merger question. However, we have argued that point and we shall continue to argue it until we are sitting on those Benches and can do something about it. We hope that will be sooner rather than later, but who knows? That disagreement underlies our position here.
That leads to the point that there ought to be a predisposition to provide all the information that is required to make a judgment at any of the stages. Using the device that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel used earlier, I oppose Amendment No. 195 simply in order to argue not that Amendment No. 195 per se is wrong but that one needs a stronger merger policy in the first place.
I accept the point of the noble Viscount about balance. Information here is of such enormous importance in order to get the matter right that, in considering the balance, I would lean rather more the other way in order to make absolutely sure that those who are concerned with these matters, in trying to express the public interest, can always obtain the appropriate information. I accept that the noble Viscount does not take that view, as he has already argued his case before I got a chance to argue mine. However, I thought your Lordships would at least like to have on the record the view of our side in connection with information, and how that stems from our view of the criterion for judging mergers in the first place. Having said that, I do not intend to delay the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
193 Page 121, line 45, at end insert —
'(6A) If—
1054

(a) under subsection (3)(b) of this section the period for considering a merger notice has been extended by a further fifteen days, but

(b) the Director has not made any recommendation to the Secretary of State under section 76(b) of this Act as to whether or not it would in the Director's opinion be expedient for the Secretary of State to make a reference to the Commission with respect to the notified arrangements,

then, during the last five of those fifteen days, the power of the Secretary of State to make a reference to the Commission with respect to the notified arrangements is not affected by the absence of any such recommendation.'
194 Page 121, line 47, leave out 'and 3' and insert ',(3) and (4A)'.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 193 and 194.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
195 Page 122, line 11, leave out from 'information' to `is' in line 13 and insert —
'(whether prescribed information or not) that —

(i) is, or ought to be, known to the person who gave the merger notice or any connected person, and

(ii) is material to the notified arrangements,'.

[Amendment No. 195A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 195, not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 195.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
196 Page 122, line 30, after 'notice', insert 'or any connected person'.
197 Page 123, line 27, at end insert —
`(dd) provide for the time at which any notice under section 75B(4A)(a) of this Act is to be treated as received,'.
198 Page 123, line 43, at end insert —
"'connected person", in relation to the person who gave a merger notice, means —

(a) any person who, for the purposes of section 77 of this Act, is associated with him, or

(b) any subsidiary of the person who gave the merger notice or of any person so associated with him,'.

199 Page 124, line 4, leave out 'and'
200 Page 124, line 6, at end insert 'and
"subsidiary" has the meaning by section 75(4K) of this Act,'.
201 Clause 120, page 130, line 8, leave out 'also applies' and insert `and section 736A of that Act also apply'.
202 Page 130, line 10, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.
203 Page 130, line 12, leave out 'subsection (5) of that section' and insert 'subsections (8) and (9) of section 736A'.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 196 to 203.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
204 Page 130, line 29, at end insert —
'(2) This section does not apply in relation to any merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.
205 Clause 121, page 131, line 28, at end insert —
'(2) This section does not apply to any merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 470, 475 to 477 and 479 to 483. These amendments are necessary to make transitional arrangements for the commencement of certain of the provisions of Part VI on Royal Assent, which is proposed in Amendment No. 319. They clarify where necessary whether the new provisions in the Bill will relate to cases which are already being dealt with under the provisions of the existing law. This is necessary to avoid any possibility of a different set of rules applying half-way through action on a reference or report.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
206 Clause 123, page 133, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert 'A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either'.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 206, which would make the regulations detailing the system of fees provided for in Clause 123 subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution.
It may be helpful if I explain that the amendment had its inspiration in this House in the form of a similar amendment put down by the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested at that time that the details of fees were a matter which could be dealt with adequately by the negative resolution procedure. The then Secretary of State agreed to consider that point. In the event we put the amendment down in another place because a financial matter was involved.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
207 Clause 125, page 133, line 41, leave out 'to 141' and insert `to 136, (Powers of Secretary of State to give directions),
(Application to determine whether default proceedings to be taken), 138 to 140, (Certain money market institutions) and (Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England)'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 207. In speaking to the amendment, which makes a consequential change to cross-references in Clause 125, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 210 to 212 and 237 to 241. The amendments make mainly minor or clarifying changes relating to the functions of the Secretary of State or the Securities and Investments Board and to the application or modification of provisions of the Financial Services Act for the purposes of Part VII.
The new clauses which Amendment No. 237 substitutes for Clause 137 modify and clarify the provisions relating to powers to give directions and applications by office-holders to determine whether default proceedings are to be taken. Those are currently treated together in Clause 137. The new clauses treat the two matters separately and thus more clearly.
The other amendments are generally in the nature of drafting or tidying up amendments but I should mention in particular Amendment No. 241, which provides for a modification to the competition test set out in Section 119 of the Financial Services Act. We think it most unlikely in practice that a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house would need to have for the purposes of Part VII a rule which would not fall within the scope of the existing competition test. However, although we think it unlikely in practice, it is theoretically conceivable that such a rule might be necessary.
With that in mind, we believe it is necessary to cater for the possibility that the existing competition test might prove inadequate for the purpose of Part VII. However, in keeping with our view that rules which cannot meet the existing test should not in practice be necessary, we do not propose to commence the provision for the time being. We would only consider commencing it if it became clear at some stage that the purposes of Part VII could only be achieved by means of one or more rules which could not satisfy the existing competition test.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may address myself to Amendment No. 237, which, as the noble Lord said when introducing Amendment No. 207, is a substantive amendment. It is a new clause and I have two questions about it. First, do I take it from what the noble Lord said, and as I understand the Financial Services Act, that the powers in the new Clause 137, if that is what it is to be, can be delegated to the Securities and Investments Board? In other words, the Secretary of State would have the principal power but that is part of the delegation order. I imagine that that is so.

1057
Secondly, if that is so, subsection (2)(b) states that the Securities and Investments Board, if that is possible, or the Secretary of State may direct an exchange or clearing house not to take certain action, if it decides to do so, after consultation. Is that what the Government intend —to stop exchange or clearing houses taking action which they deem to be appropriate? I understood that the idea was to encourage people to take action. To stop regulatory bodies from taking action seems to go beyond the Financial Services Act as I have known it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify whether that is the intention.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I understand it, the answer is yes in relation to both exchanges.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
208 Clause 125, page 134, line 3, leave out '146' and insert '(Application of margin not affected by certain other interests), (Priority of floating market charge over subsequent charges) and 147'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 208.
This paving amendment makes changes to cross references in Clause 125 to take account of the new clauses inserted by Amendment No. 261. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would like to debate the substantive issue when we reach Amendment No. 261, so I shall say no more at this stage.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
209 Clause 126, page 134, line 15, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 273 and 275 to 294.
These amendments mainly concern definitions used in the part and are mostly minor or consequential. There are three points that I wish to highlight. First, Amendment No. 209 drops from the Bill two sub-paragraphs whose purpose was to ensure that the so-called back-to-back contracts relating to business on the futures exchanges are within the scope of the part. We have been persuaded that the wording is too wide as it stands and that it would be better to deal with the question of back-to-back contracts as necessary in regulations.
Secondly, the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 273 deals with a potential anomaly by allowing provision to be made for circumstances in which a person enters into contracts in more than one capacity.
1058
Thirdly, Amendment No. 282 inserts a definition of notice for the purposes of the part. As I have already said, the other amendments are minor or consequential.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we agree with the Commons amendments in principle. As we now have the benefit of the noble and learned Lord at the Dispatch Box, perhaps I may ask him about Amendment No. 276. What, in Scotland, is a "judicial factor"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, a judicial factor is someone appointed by the court to operate as a trustee. It may occur in a number of different circumstances. For example, a judicial factor might be appointed where a trust has got into difficulty. It might be in relation to a company or partnership. It is essentially a person appointed by the court to take over the running of the organisation, estate or whatever.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
210 Clause 127, page 135, line 7, leave out 'Part' and insert `section'.
211 Page 135, line 11, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Where the Secretary of State gives such a notice, he'.
212 Page 135, line 19, leave out 'notice is given under subsection (3)' and insert 'the notice was given.'
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 210 to 212.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
213 Clause 129, page 135, line 36 at end insert —'
'(1A) So far as those provisions relate to insolvency proceedings in respect of a person other than a defaulter, they apply in relation to—

(a) proceedings in respect of a member or designated non-member of a recognised investment exchange or a member of a recognised clearing house, and

(b) proceedings in respect of a party to a market contract begun after a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house has taken action under its default rules in relation to a person party to the contract as principal,

but not in relation to any other insolvency proceedings, notwithstanding that rights or liabilities arising from market contracts fall to be dealt with in the proceedings.
(1B) The reference in subsection (1A)(b) to the beginning of insolvency proceedings is to —

(a) the presentation of a bankruptcy petition for sequestration of a person's estate, or

(b) the presentation of a petition for an administration order or a winding-up petition or the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding-up, or

(c) the appointment of an administrative receiver.'.

214 Clause 130, page 136, line 12, leave out from '1986' to 'shall' in line 13 and insert 'or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985'.
215 Page 136, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert —
'This does not prevent a relevant office-holder from afterwards seeking to recover any amount under section 134(4) or 135(3) or prevent the court from afterwards making any such order or decree as is mentioned in section 136(1) or (2) (but subject to subsections (3) and (4) of that section).'.
216 Clause 132, page 137, line 36, after 'defaulter', insert 'or, in Scotland, a permanent trustee on the sequestrated estate of the defaulter'.
217 Page 137, line 45, leave out 'or have been pending' and insert 'pending or could be taken', or have been or could have been taken.'.
218 Page 138 line 1, after '130', insert, '185'.
219 Page 138, line 3, leave out 'the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985' and insert 'any rule of law in Scotland to the like effect as the said section 285, in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 as to the effect of sequestration,'.
220 Clause 134, page 138, line 31, leave out from 'upon' to 'to' and insert 'proceedings under its default rules duly completed in accordance with this Part,'.
221 Page 138, line 44, leave out '129' and insert '247'.
222 Page 139, line 4, leave out 'compensation or'.
223 Page 139, line 8, after 'winding up', insert '(within the meaning of section 129 of the Insolvency Act 1986)'.
224 Page 139, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert —
'(4) However, where (or to the extent that) a sum is taken into account by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b) which arises from a contract entered into at a time when the creditor had notice —

(a) that a bankruptcy petition or, in Scotland, a petition for sequestration was pending, or

(b) that a meeting of creditors has been summoned under section 98 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or that a winding-up petition was pending.

the value of any profit to him arising from the sum being so taken into account (or being so taken into account to that extent) is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.
(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to a sum arising from a contract effected under the default rules or a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.'.
225 Page 139, line 24, after 'preferential', insert 'or, in Scotland, preferred'.
226 Clause 135, page 139, line 33, leave out 'and 315' and insert 315 and 345'.
227 Page 139, line 34, at end insert —
'(1A) In Scotland, a permanent trustee on the sequestrated estate of a defaulter or a liquidator is bound by any market contract to which that defaulter is a party and by any contract as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above notwithstanding section 42 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or any rule of law to the like effect applying in liquidations.'.
228 Page 139, line 37, after 'petition)' insert 'and section 32(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (effect of dealing with debtor relating to estate vested in permanent trustee),'.
229 Page 140, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert —
'(3) However, where —

(a) a market contract is entered into by a person who has notice that a petition has been presented for the winding up or bankruptcy or sequestration of the estate of the other party to the contract, or

(b) margin in relation to a market contract is accepted by a person who has notice that such a petition has been presented in relation to the person by whom or on whose behalf the margin is provided,

the value of any profit to him arising from the contract or, as the case may be, the amount or value of the margin is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.
1060
(3A) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply where the person entering into the contract is a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house acting in accordance with its rules, or where the contract is effected under the default rules of such an exchange or clearing house; but subsection (3)(b) applies in relation to the provision of margin in relation to such a contract.'.
230 Page 140, line 8, after 'preferential', insert 'or, in Scotland, preferred'.
231 Clause 136, page 140, line 9, leave out 'market contract' and insert transaction to which this section applies'.
232 Page 140, leave out lines 15 to 18.
233 Page 140, line 19, leave out 'a market contract' and insert `any such transaction'.
234 Page 140, line 24, at end, insert 'on grounds of gratuitous alienations or fraudulent preferences'.
235 Page 140, leave out lines 25 to 27.
236 Page 140, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) This section applies to —

(a) a market contract to which a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house is a party or which is entered into under its default rules, and

(b) a disposition of property in pursuance of such a market contract.

(4) Where margin is provided in relation to a market contract and (by virtue of subsection (3)(a) or otherwise) no such order or decree as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) has been, or could be, made in relation to that contract, this section applies to—

(a) the provision of the margin,

(b) any contract effected by the exchange or clearing house in question for the purpose of realising the property provided as margin, and

(c) any disposition of property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house as to the application of property provided as margin.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move
that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 213 to 236. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 269 and 270.
These are fairly minor amendments to tidy up or clarify certain insolvency law provisions of the past and to add some further references to relevant Scottish proceedings.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. — (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
237 Leave out Clause 137 and insert —
'Powers of Secretary of State to give directions.
. —(1) The powers conferred by this section are exercisable in relation to a recognised UK investment exchange or recognised UK clearing house.
(2) Where in any case an exchange or clearing house has not taken action under its default rules —

(a) if it appears to the Secretary of State that it could take action, he may direct it to do so, and

(b) if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is proposing to take or may take action, he may direct it not to do so.

(3) Before giving such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult the exchange or clearing house in question; and he shall not give a direction unless he is satisfied, in the light of that consultation —

(a) in the case of a direction to take action, that failure to take action would involve undue risk to investors or other participants in the market, or

1061

(b) in the case of a direction not to take action, that the taking of action would be premature or otherwise undesirable in the interests of investors or other participants in the market.

(4) A direction shall specify the grounds on which it is given.
(5) A direction not to take action may be expressed to have effect until the giving of a further direction (which may be a direction to take action or simply revoking the earlier direction).
(6) No direction shall be given not to take action if, in relation to the person in question —

(a) a bankruptcy order or an award of sequestration of his estate has been made, or an interim receiver or interim trustee has been appointed, or

(b) a winding up order has been made, a resolution for voluntary winding up has been passed or an administrator, administrative receiver or provisional liquidator has been appointed;

and any previous direction not to take action shall cease to have effect on the making or passing of any such order, award or appointment.
(7) Where an exchange or clearing house has taken or been directed to take action under its default rules, the Secretary of State may direct it to do or not do such things (being things which it has power to do under its default rules) as are specified in the direction.
The Secretary of State shall not give such a direction unless he is satisfied that it will not impede or frustrate the proper and efficient conduct of the default proceedings.
(8) A direction under this section is enforceable, on the application of the Secretary of State, by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988; and where an exchange or clearing house has not complied with a direction, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the direction had been complied with.
Application to determine whether default proceedings to be taken.
. —(1) Where there has been made or passed in relation to a member or designated non-member of a recognised investment exchange or a member of a recognised clearing house —

(a) a bankruptcy order or an award of sequestration of his estate, or an order appointing an interim receiver of his property, or

(b) an administration or winding up order, a resolution for voluntary winding up or an order appointing a provisional liquidator,

and the exchange or clearing house has not taken action under its default rules in consequence of the order, award or resolution or the matters giving rise to it, a relevant office-holder appointed by, or in consequence of or in connection with, the order, award or resolution may apply to the Secretary of State.
(2) The application shall specify the exchange or clearing house concerned and the grounds on which it is made.
(3) On receipt of the application the Secretary of State shall notify the exchange or clearing house, and unless within three business days after the day on which the notice is received the exchange or clearing house —

(a) takes action under its default rules, or

(b) notifies the Secretary of State that it proposes to do so forthwith,

then, subject as follows, the provisions of sections 129 to 136 above do not apply in relation to market contracts to which the member or designated non-member in question is a party or to anything done by the exchange or clearing house for the purposes of, or in connection with, the settlement of any such contract.
For this purpose a "business day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.
(4) The provisions of sections 129 to 136 are not disapplied if before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3) the Secretary of State gives the exchange or clearing house a direction under section (Powers of Secretary of State to give directions)(2)(a) (direction to take action under default rules).
No such direction may be given after the end of that period.
(5) If the exchange or clearing house notifies the Secretary of State that it proposes to take action under its default rules forthwith, it shall do so; and that duty is enforceable, on the application of the Secretary of State, by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.'.
238 Clause 138, page 141, line 34, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
239 Page 141, line 40, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
240 Page 141, line 42, at end insert—
(3) The Secretary of State may —

(a) in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), (4) or (5) of section 115 of the Financial Services Act 1986, or

(b) if it appears to him that a designated agency is unable or unwilling to discharge all or any of the functions under this Part which have been transferred to it,

make an order under that section resuming all functions under this Part which have been transferred to the agency.
This does not affect his power to make an order under subsection (1) or (2) of that section with respect to such functions.'.
241 Clause 139, page 142, line 17, at end insert—
'(4) The references in sections 119 and 121 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (competition) to what is necessary for the protection of investors shall be construed as including references to what is necessary for the purposes of this Part.
(5) Section 204 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (service of notices) applies in relation to a notice, direction or other document required or authorised by or under this Part to be given to or served on any person other than the Secretary of State.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 237 to 241. These amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
242 Clause 140, page 142, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 24 and insert 'is approved by him'.
243 Page 142, line 29, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert
'(2) The Secretary of State shall not approve an overseas investment exchange or clearing house unless he is satisfied

(a) that the rules and practices of the body, together with the law of the country in which the body's head office is situated, provide adequate procedures for dealing with the default of persons pary to contracts connected with the body, and

(b) that it is otherwise appropriate to approve the body.

(3) The reference in subsection (2)(a) to default is to a person being unable to meet his obligations.'.
244 Page 142, line 42, leave out 'regulations may' and insert `Secretary of State may make regulations which'.
245 Page 142, line 47, at end insert; and different provision may be made with respect to different bodies or descriptions of body.
246 Page 142, line 47, at end insert—
'(6) Where the regulations apply any provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986, they may provide that those provisions apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.'.
247 Leave out Clause 141 and insert—
'Certain money market institutions.
—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this Part applies to contracts of any specified description in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided by a person for the time being included in a list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of this section, as it applies to contracts connected with a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make any such regulations unless he is satisfied, having regard to the extent to which the contracts in question —

(a) involve, or are likely to involve, investments falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (money market investments), or

(b) are otherwise of a kind dealt in by persons supervised by the Bank of England,

that it is appropriate that the arrangements should be subject to the supervision of the Bank of England.
(3) The approval of the Treasury is required for —

(a) the conditions imposed by the Bank of England for admission to the list maintained by it for the purposes of this section, and

(b) the arrangements for a person's admission to and removal from the list;

and any regulations made under this section shall cease to have effect if the approval of the Treasury is withdrawn, but without prejudice to their having effect again if approval is given for fresh conditions or arrangements.
(4) The Bank of England shall publish the list as for the time being in force and provide a certified copy of it at the request of any person wishing to refer to it in legal proceedings.
A certified copy shall be evidence (in Scotland, sufficient evidence) of the contents of the list; and a copy purporting to be certified by or on behalf of the Bank shall be deemed to have been duly certified unless the contrary is shown.
(5) Regulations under this section may, in relation to a person included in the list —

(a) apply, with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, such of the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 as he considers appropriate, and

(b) provide that the provisions of this Part apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(6) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.
(7) In section 84(1) of the Banking Act 1987 (disclosure of information obtained under that Act), in the Table showing the authorities to which, and functions for the purposes of which, disclosure may be made, at the end add—

"A person included in the list maintained by the Bank for the purposes of section (Certain money market institutions) of the Companies Act 1989.

Functions under settlement arrangements to which regulations under that section relate.".

Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England.
. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this Part applies to contracts of any specified description in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided by the Bank of England, as it applies to
1064
contracts connected with a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
(2) Regulations under this section may provide that the provisions of this Part apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 242 to 247.
These amendments make modifications to the power to extend the market contracts provisions of the part to contracts connected with certain bodies other than recognised investment exchanges or recognised clearing houses. There are two main effects. First, the scope of Clause 140 is modified so that regulations may be made to apply the part, if that is thought appropriate, to contracts connected with any overseas exchange or clearing house which has adequate default procedures. It will no longer be a requirement that the body in question must participate in links of a certain kind with a recognised UK body. Secondly, criteria are added to inform the power to apply the part in relation to systems for the money markets operated by a person supervised by the Bank of England. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, may recall that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde indicated at an earlier stage that we were considering an amendment of this kind. The restructuring of Clause 141 into two new clauses is consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I indeed remember the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on these matters. I have three questions on these amendments. On Amendment No. 243 would the noble Lord kindly give me some indication of what the Secretary of State or the Government consider to be adequate procedures? Secondly, under subsection (2)(b)—always on Amendment No. 243 —what is the substantive meaning of the expression:
"that it is otherwise appropriate to approve the body"?
What other criteria are hidden behind all that?
Thirdly, in Amendment No. 247, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could let me know how the Bank of England proposes to choose people who are on the list. The list has to be published, as is specified in subsection (4), but there seem to be no prescriptions on the Bank of England on how they choose people to be on their list even if it is published. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me some indication of what the Government have in mind.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have the answers to a range of questions in front of me but not, I fear, the ones that the noble Lord has asked. I undertake to write to him as soon as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
248 Clause 142, page 143, leave out line 31 and insert 'in this Part "market charge" means a charge'.
249 Page 143, leave out line 44.
250 Page 144, line 2, leave out from `purposes' to end of line 4 and insert `it is a "market charge" so far as it has effect for the specified purposes.'.
251 Page 144, line 14, leave out 'sections 143 and 144' and insert 'this Part'.
252 Page 144, line 15, at end insert —
'(4A) The regulations may provide that a charge shall or shall not be treated as a market charge if or to the extent that it secures obligations of a specified description, is a charge over property of a specified description or contains provisions of a specified description.'.
253 Page 144, line 16, leave out subsection (5) and insert —'(5)
'(5) Before making regulations under this section in relation to charges granted in favour of a person within subsection (1)(c), the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.'.
254 Clause 143, page 144, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Before making regulations under this section in relation to charges granted in favour of a person within section 142 (1)(c), the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.'.
255 Clause 144, page 144, line 39, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert —
'(1) The following provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which relate to administration orders and administrators) do not apply in relation to a market charge—

(a) sections 10(1)(b) and 11(3)(b) (restrictions on enforcement of security while petition for administration order pending or order in force), and

(b) section 15(1) and (2) (power of administrator to deal with charged property);

and section 11(2) of that Act (receiver to vacate office when so required by administrator) does not apply to a receiver appointed under a market charge.
(2) However, where a market charge falls to be enforced after an administration order has been made or a petition for an administration order has been presented, and there exists another charge over some or all of the same property ranking in priority to or pari passu with the market charge, the court may order that there shall be taken after enforcement of the market charge such steps as the court may direct for the purpose of ensuring that the chargee under the other charge is not prejudiced by the enforcement of the market charge.
(3) The following provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which relate to the powers of receivers) do not apply in relation to a market charge —

(a) section 43 (power of administrative receiver to dispose of charged property), and

(b) section 61 (power of receiver in Scotland to dispose of an interest in property).'.

256 Page 145, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
'(4) Sections 127 and 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (avoidance of property dispositions effected after commencement of winding up or presentation of bankruptcy petition), and section 32(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (effect of dealing with debtor relating to estate vested in permanent trustee), do not apply to a disposition of property as a result of which the property becomes subject to a market charge or any transaction pursuant to which that disposition is made.
(5) However, if a person (other than the chargee under the market charge) who is party to a disposition mentioned in subsection (4) has notice at the time of the disposition that a petition has been presented for the winding up or bankruptcy or sequestration of the estate of the party making the disposition, the value of any profit to him arising from the disposition is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.'.
257 Page 145, line 17, after 'preferential', insert 'or, in Scotland, preferred'.
258 Page 145, line 17, at end insert —'
'(7) In a case falling within both subsection (4) above (as a disposition of property as a result of which the property becomes subject to a market charge) and section 135(2) (as the provision of margin in relation to a market contract), section 135(3) applies with respect to the recovery of the amount or value of the margin and subsection (5) above does not apply.'.
259 Clause 145, page 145, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert —
'(2) The regulations may specify any description of charge granted in favour of—

(a) a body approved under section 140 (certain overseas exchanges and clearing houses),

(b) a person included in the list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of section (Certain money market institutions) (certain money market institutions),

(c) the Bank of England,

(d) an authorised person within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986, or

(e) an international securities self-regulating organisation within the meaning of that Act,

for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with or as a result of the settlement of contracts or the transfer of assets, rights or interests on a financial market.
(2A) The regulations may specify any description of charge granted for that purpose in favour of any other person in connection with exchange facilities or clearing services provided by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house or by any such body, person, authority or organisation as is mentioned: n subsection (2).
(2B) Where a charge is granted partly for the purpose specified in subsection (2) and partly for other purposes, the power conferred by this section is exercisable in relation to the charge so far as it has effect for that purpose.'.
260 Page 145, line 43, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
'(4) Before making regulations under this section relating to a description of charges defined by reference to their being granted —

(a) in favour of a person included in the list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of section (Certain money market institutions), Or in connection with exchange facilities or clearing services provided by a person included in that list, or

(b) in favour of the Bank of England, or in connection

wih settlement arrangements provided by the Bank, the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.
(5) Regulations under this section may provide that they apply or do not apply to a charge if or to the extent that it secures obligations of a specified description, is a charge over property of a specified description or contains provisions of a specified description.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 248 to 260. These amendments are mainly concerned with tidying up the provisions on the market charges, in particular the working of the regulation-making power in Clause 142 which will be used to specify in detail the extent to which a charge is to be regarded as a market charge for the purposes of this part. Provision is also made to permit the interests of a prior chargee to be safeguarded in the event that the market charge is enforced during an administration.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have no objection to the wording of the Commons amendments. I just wish to place on the record yet again that we do not believe in the concept of market charges. We do not believe that it will work. Our advisers do not believe that it will work, and we believe that this is a false concept in insolvency law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
261 Clause 146, leave out Clause 146 and insert —
'Application of margin not affected by certain other interests
'. —(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the application by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house of property (other than land) held by the exchange or clearing house as margin in relation to a market contract.
(2) So far as necessary to enable the property to be applied in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house, it may be so applied notwithstanding any prior equitable interest or right, or any right or remedy arising from a breach of fiduciary duty, unless the exchange or clearing house had notice of the interest, right or breach of duty at the time the property was provided as margin.
(3) No right or remedy arising subsequently to the property being provided as margin may be enforced so as to prevent or interfere with the application of the property by the exchange or clearing house in accordance with its rules.
(4) Where an exchange or clearing house has power by virtue of the above provisions to apply property notwithstanding an interest, right or remedy, a person to whom the exchange or clearing house disposes of the property in accordance with its rules takes free from that interest, right or remedy.'.
Priority of floating market charge over subsequent charges
. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a market charge which is a floating charge has priority over a charge subsequently created or arising, including a fixed charge.
(2) The regulations may make different provision for cases defined, as regards the market charge or the subsequent charge, by reference to the description of charge, its terms, the circumstances in which it is created or arises, the nature of the charge, the person in favour of whom it is granted or arises or any other relevant factor.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261. I am anxious to avoid the difficulty that we got into earlier. Therefore may I just move the amendment and sit down, and perhaps the noble Lord would then like to move his amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
261A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 261A standing in my name. It is a Motion to disagree. Amendment No. 261 raises a number of problems with which we have to take issue. The original draft, which appeared during the summer, was the subject of correspondence, as I know, between the Insolvency Practitioners'
1068
Association and the Government. The problem is that it should be the responsibility of the recipient cover for margin to satisfy himself or herself that the property provided is in the beneficial ownership of the provider. That should be the responsibility of the recipient. In our view it cannot be right for the beneficial interests of third parties in trust property to be alienated by statute to cover debts of the market. The proposal as it stands seems to us to be wrong. Therefore we wish to oppose it.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
9.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the first new clause inserted by Amendment No. 261 deals with the narrow set of circumstances relating to specialised financial markets, essentially the futures and options markets which operate a margin system. The clause reproduces, with minor modifications, the effect of Clause 146 and adds a further provision to protect the application by an exchange or clearing house of property subject to certain prior interests in a case where such property is provided as margin in relation to market contracts and the exchange or clearing house does not have notice of the prior interest at the time that the property is provided. This is to ensure that the guarantee of performance in connection with which the margin is taken is not compromised by attempts to pursue possible competing claims.
Perhaps I may explain why the ability to apply margin taken in good faith is so vital. The clearing house provides the guarantee of performance on all the contracts registered with it, typically in excess of 150,000 contacts a day in the case of the London clearing house which clears the main futures and options markets. It is not uncommon for the total daily margin call made by the clearing house to exceed £100 million, and at any one time the clearing house may hold £500 million or more in margin.
It will readily be seen that the exposure is enormous and that there could be very grave consequences if the application of the margin could be prevented or delayed in the event of a default. In a matter of such importance the clearing house will naturally arrange its procedures in relation to margins so as to ensure as far as possible that the margin which it takes is free from any prior right or interest. However, some uncertanties remain; for example, the position in a case in which the firm was unknown to the clearing house, using clients' money to margin its house account. It may be that as matters stand the clearing house holds that money on terms which allow it to be applied in accordance with its rules, notwithstanding that the money should not have been provided to margin those contracts. Even if that were not the case, we think it quite likely that in those circumstances the clearing house's right to apply the property taken in good faith would be upheld over any claim to a prior interest. The clearing house would be in a position analogous to that of a purchaser in good faith for value without notice.

1069
This is a legally uncertain area, and because the ability to use margin is a crucial feature of the clearing system on which the integrity of the margin markets depends uncertainty here must be just as damaging as in the case of the insolvency law uncertainties with which the rest of Part VII deals. For that reason we have been persuaded that it is right to make provision as to the application of margin in the narrow set of circumstances covered by this clause.
I have explained at a little length the background to this clause and why we believe it is necessary. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Motion and that your Lordships will in due course agree to the amendment proposed by the other place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he has in very clear terms explained the problem. Other people's money can be pledged unknowingly in margin for contract. The other people will therefore and thereby be deprived if the margin is called. The sums involved could be £1 million, £100 million or £1,000 million. It seems to me to be wrong that if someone owns property beneficially and finds his property pledged in margin for a contract, if that contract were called he could lose his money without knowing about it at all. It is a very odd situation. It is up to the recipient of the cover for margin to satisfy himself that the property provided is in the beneficial ownership of the provider. That must be a very basic principle, whatever the sums involved. I recognise what the noble Lord said about the market and how important it is. However, I still believe that it is a fundamental principle of law that somebody's money cannot be pledged on the margin of contracts or anything else without his agreement. Unfortunately that is what the Government have written in. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to speak further to that point when he moves his amendment, if I withdraw my amendment. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 261A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 261, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 261 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
262 Clause 148, page 146, line 19, leave out from 'property' to 'margin' and insert '(other than land) is held by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house as'.
263 Clause 149, page 146, line 42, leave out from beginning to third 'to' in line 3 on page 147 and insert—

'(a) section 140, (Certain money market institutions) or (Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England) (power to extend provisions relating to market contracts), or

(b) section 145 (power to extend provisions relating to market charges),

includes power to apply sections (Application of margin not affected by certain other interests), (Priority of floating market charge over subsequent charges), 147 and 148.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 262 and 263.
1070
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
264 Clause 150, page 147, line 17, leave out 'Part' and insert `section'.
265 Page 147, line 31, leave out from 'Scotland' to 'the' in line 36.
266 Page 147, line 43, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
267 Page 148, line 4, leave out 'this Part specified below' and insert 'Schedule (Financial markets and insolvency; provisions applying to pre-commencement cases)'.
268 Page 148, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert —
'(5) The provisions of that Schedule ("the relevant provisions") reproduce the effect of certain provisions of this Part as they appeared in the Bill for this Act as introduced into the House of Lords and published on that date.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 264 to 268.
In speaking to these amendments, I speak also to Amendment No. 493. These amendments relate to the provisions in Clause 150 to deal with precommencement cases. Some of the amendments which we have discussed make substantive changes to certain of the provisions listed in Clause 155.
For the purposes of Clause 150 it is necessary to preserve the effect of those provisions in the form in which they appeared in the Bill as first published. The simplest and most straightforward way of doing this is to reproduce the effect of the relevant original provisions in a schedule. That is what these amendments do.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
269 Clause 151, page 149, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'by' in line 20 and insert 'insofar as the making of the order or the doing of the act would be prohibited in the case of a court in the United Kingdom or a relevant office-holder'.
270 Page 149, line 20, at end insert—
'(3) Subsection (2) does not affect the recognition or enforcement of a judgment required to be recognised or enforced under or by virtue of the Civil jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 and 270.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
271 Clause 152, page 149, line 35, after 'servant' insert 'or member of the governing body'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271.
This amendment adds a reference to the members of the governing body of a recognised investment exchange of a recognised clearing house to the list of persons in Clause 152(3) to whom the immunity confirmed by the subsection applies. This simply brings the provisions into line with analogous provisions in Section 187 of the Financial Services Act in Clause 46(1) of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
272 After Clause 152, insert the following new clause—
'Power to make further provisions by regulations.
. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such further provision as appears to him necesssary or expedient for the purposes of this Part.
(2) Provision may, in particular, be made —

(a) for integrating the provisions of this Part with the general law of insolvency, and

(b) for adapting the provisions of this Part in their application to overseas investment exchanges and clearing houses.

(3) Regulations under this section may add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Part or provide that those provisions have effect subject to such additions, exceptions or adaptions as are specified in the regulations.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272.
While I am on my feet perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord because I did not fully explain the purpose of the last amendment. If he examines the words that I used at the outset of my speech —which I edited slightly to take account of the concerns of the noble Lord that I thought I was meeting—he may find that I did so.
On Amendment No. 272, we have debated the principles of regulation-making powers many times in the course of our debates. I dare say that we shall hear about them again. However, while I recognise that these amendments provide the same power, they represent the implementation of the Government's view on this matter.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
272A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 272A. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said quite rightly that we had debated the powers granted by Parliament to the Secretary of State to alter enactments and anything else in any way that he feels fit. Here we have a particularly
1072
flagrant example. I should like to give the House a quotation from the new clause. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such further provision as appears to him necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Part".
That deals with insolvency. The new clause continues:
"Provision may, in particular, be made … for integrating the provisions of this Part with the general law of insolvency … and for adapting the provisions of this Part in their application to overseas investment exchanges and clearing houses".
In other words, the Secretary of State can simply junk all that we have before us in Part VII and say, "I have decided on something rather different. I have decided to integrate it with the general law of insolvency because Part VII violates the general law of insolvency of pari passu"., He can say, "I am now going back to pari passu". He can make regulations which change the primary legislation simply by fiat that to which we object.
I should have thought that by now, having gone through all the procedures and having had all the consultations, the Government would come with a clear statement about what they want in changes in insolvency legislation. They came and said, "We want to violate the pari passu principle. We want to do that particularly in respect of market contracts and market charges". Fair enough. We have argued that in Committee, on Report and in another place. It has been decided.
Now we go back and say that the Secretary of State may cancel all that. I believe that the House should think most carefully before accepting the provision.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in the Amendment No. 272. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise if I moved Amendment No. 272 in a slightly inarticulate fashion. I now respond to Amendment No. 272A. I recognise the strong feelings which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and other noble Lords hold about the matter. Nevertheless, I hope that at this stage of the Bill we can avoid a further debate on the principle. I shall explain why we believe that it is necessary to take the powers conferred by the new clause and inserted by Amendment No. 272.
As I am sure your Lordships will agree, Part VII of the Bill deals with complex matters. Insolvency law is complex, as are market procedures. The part must cater for a variety of different markets with different procedures. The markets are constantly developing and changing to meet the requirements of their users and new competitive challenges. The subject with which we aredealing— that is, default —is one where thankfully there is little practical experience to draw upon.
In the circumstances, it is essential that we provide a good deal of flexibility within the legislation to cope with different cases and future developments. Thus, we have from the outset had a number of powers to make regulations in the part. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised at an earlier stage that some flexibility was needed in provisions of this kind.

1073
In the course of our consultations on the part it has become clear that there are further matters not covered by the existing powers where modification or adaptation may be needed to deal either with particular cases or future developments. Two examples are given in the new clause but others may occur. For example, Schedule 16 sets out quite detailed requirements in relation to default rules for recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses. The provisions are structured in the light of the market systems as we know them today.
We have concluded that it would be unwise not to leave scope for modification to accommodate new structures which might be more appropriate to the needs of the markets in a few years' time. The terms of the power follow the approach with the powers to modify insolvency law in Clauses 129 and 143 which have been in the part from the outset. The main difference is that the power may be exercised in relation to any of the provisions in the part as opposed to just the insolvency law provisions.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not press his objection.
The noble Lord asked in particular about the breadth of the power which we propose. I respond particularly to that matter. The power is expressed as one to make what further provision appears necessary or expedient for the purposes of the part. Those are set out in Clause 125 and relate to safeguarding the operating of certain financial markets. I believe that that makes clear enough the limited parameters within which this power may be exercised. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his objections.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response. He has not persuaded me but has reiterated the arguments in favour of a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State for the purposes of this part. At this late stage of the Bill, I cannot do very much about that other than divide the House, which would be rather pointless. Therefore, I have to accept that if the Government want to give any future Secretary of State wide powers to regulate this part of the Companies Bill, which deals with insolvency, and simply change the whole enactment, then they can do that. I am very reluctant to abandon this matter and I propose to press my amendment.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272?
Their Lordships divided:

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Hacking, L.

Seear, B.

Ogmore, L. [Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Polwarth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

9.54 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, there have voted: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 19. As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question is not decided, and further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.

Employment Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Local Government and Housing Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with certain amendments agreed to with amendments and with consequential amendments to the Bill; with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof and with consequential amendments to the Bill; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.

  EAST TIMOR
  EAST TIMOR
  ARMS PRODUCTION
  ARMS PRODUCTION
  C GRANT APPLICATION SUPPORT: POLICY
  C GRANT APPLICATION SUPPORT: POLICY
  NATIONALITY FEES: 1988–89 ACCOUNTS
  NATIONALITY FEES: 1988–89 ACCOUNTS