Sitting of 13 November 1989

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

    ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 November],
    That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to the Preamble, page 1, line 4, at the end, to insert the words—
    '(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 Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Debate further adjourned till Tuesday 14 November.

    CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
    Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Tuesday 14 November.

    UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 14 November.

    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 on Tuesday 14 November.

    PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL
    Motion made,
    That so much of the Lords Message [2nd November] as relates to the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill be now considered.
    That the Promoters of the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill 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 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, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
    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.

    NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Nottingham Park Estate 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 no 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, 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 read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    That the Petitions relating to 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.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) 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;
    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.

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Medway Tunnel 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;
    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;

    5
    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.

    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 3) BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) 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 had been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
    That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
    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.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these orders, to suspend further 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:
    Ordered,
    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;
    Ordered,
    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 read the first time and referred to the Examiners Of Petitions for Private Bills;
    Ordered,
    That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
    Ordered,
    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;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the British Film Institute Southbank 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 Tuesday 14 November.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the British Railways 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 proceeding 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 Tuesday 14 November.

    BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) 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

    7
    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;
    Ordered,
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    Ordered,
    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;
    Ordered,
    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;
    Ordered,
    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;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) 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;
    8
    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 Tuesday 14 November.

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council 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 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 the 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 Tuesday 14 November.

Oral Answers to Questions

  Oral Answers to Questions
  2.38 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: Further to my point of order on Friday, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in the conduct of private——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with questions. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, if it is connected with private business, at the proper time.

  ENERGY

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to set a date for the privatisation of the electricity industry.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the restructuring of the electricity supply industry to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): The Government intend to implement the new structure of the industry at the end of March 1990 and to complete its privatisation within this Parliament; the area boards will be offered for sale in autumn 1990 and the two generating companies will be offered for sale in the first half of 1991.
    Mr. Macdonald: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new-found enthusiasm for the mixed economy, but I warn him that he still has some way to go. Does he agree that the decision to abandon the privatisation of nuclear power should have been taken 12 months ago by his predecessor, and that if it had been, he would not have been left with this shambles?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—[Interruption.] It is not very far. If the decision had been taken before I would not have been involved in dealing with the matter when I arrived. However, it was not until the late summer and the beginning of autumn that the terms which the private sector wanted for the privatisation of nuclear power became apparent and those terms, as I reported to the House on Thursday, I was unable to recommend.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statute under which he exercises his responsibilities, which was passed by the coalition Government in April 1945, requires him to be personally responsible for promoting economy and efficiency in the supply of energy? Will he now institute a public inquiry into how it was that successive chairmen of the generating board misled successive Secretaries of State on the true costs of nuclear power, at a cost to the taxpayers and electricity consumers of many billions of pounds? In those circumstances does he think it right that Lord Marshall should be compensated when he leaves the generating board?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that an inquiry is necessary. The principal concerns about the price of nuclear power arose because of the high capital charges and the return on investment and not so much, as some
    10
    have suggested, because of the decommissioning costs and fuel service charges. I believe that those concerns arose, as I told the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) a few moments ago, in the summer of this year—that was why I was faced with a difficult decision.
    I fully accept all my responsibilities as laid down under the statute—as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman did when in my position—and I do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.
    Mr. Rost: Now that nuclear power is excluded from the privatisation is there not an overwhelming case for adjusting the imbalance between National Power and PowerGen to create a more competitive climate among producers?
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that a competitive market is developing and the proposals that I have made will ensure fair competition between the generators, whatever their size, especially the independent generators which will strongly enter the market. To change the allocation of stations at this stage would risk failing to complete privatisation in this Parliament and that would not be in the consumers' interests.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement last Thursday, like the 13th chime of the clock, cast doubt on all that had gone before? Is it not true that no one believes any of the figures quoted by his Department in furtherance of privatisation? Does he agree that it would be better, particularly as the Government are blaming the advisers and the generating board for those figures, if the Government published a White Paper spelling out all the advice that they have received on costs and prices and projections of costs and prices for oil, coal and nuclear power stations? Would not that permit rational discussion of what is happening and some rational decisions to be taken? In short, would it not be best if the Government came clean on figures?
    Mr. Wakeham: One problem in the past has been that some of these costs have been hidden away and we have not fully realised what they are. We believe that by our creating an electricity generating industry that is highly competitive, the market will determine the best costs, and the Government will welcome the competition that follows.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the setting up of independent generation companies after the restructuring of the electricity supply industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): There are approaching 20 independent projects in prospect, which will provide up to 15 per cent. of present capacity in England and Wales. The first new independent generating company to be established as a result of our privatisation proposals is Lakeland Power, which has just signed a contract with the North Western electricity board for 220 MW of gas-fired generation.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that without the privatisation programme we might not have heard the true cost of nuclear power and that, therefore, good has come of it? Does he also accept that the rationale behind splitting the CEGB into only two companies—of

    11
    which one, National Power, will produce 70 per cent. of the electricity—was nuclear power? As that rationale has now disappeared, does he agree that competition to keep down the cost of energy is most important and that there should be more than two generation companies, possibly four or five, so that people can see that privatisation is for the good of the consumer?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with about three quarters of that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that competition is the force which will bring down costs. Of course, that competition is absent in the present structure in which the monopolist sets up the costs and passes them straight to the consumer. I part company with my hon. Friend when he says that to generate competition it is necessary further to sub-divide the two major companies. There will be a multiplicity of companies and company sizes and, as I said in my initial answer, we know of 20 independent projects coming to the market representing about 15 per cent. of present capacity. That means that there will be a multiplicity of competition.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Why is the Minister so confident about the cost of electricity when a document from his Department to the Cabinet said that, on privatisation, electricity prices would rise by 15 per cent. for domestic consumers and by 25 per cent. for industrial comsumers?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall not comment on leaked documents, and old documents at that. There is no doubt that the competitive pressures that will exist in the industry as a result of privatisation will put downward pressure on costs. As I said, a multiplicity of new projects have been proposed with cost structures considerably below those of the present industry. New types of generation, for instance gas-fired generation, are coming forward. They have much lower cost structures and that will have an effect on prices.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of the statement last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the future of the nuclear generating industry, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to promote more strongly and quickly the environmentally friendly mini-power stations to take advantage of the cheap coal that is produced in Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the Nottinghamshire UDM pits have been increasing their efficiency quite remarkably. They are now among the highest productivity pits in the country. If those pits continue to improve their present rate of productivity and increased efficiency, there will be a great future not only for Nottinghamshire but for the coal industry as a whole.
    Mr. Doran: The Secretary of State will be aware that the oil industry and the gas producers have invested heavily with a view to entering the electricity generating market with a cleaner fuel—gas. Given the present shambles of electricity privatisation, what are the prospects for that investment proceeding?
    Mr. Spicer: That is a non-sequitur. The gas-fired generation proposals are made possible only because of privatisation and because of the competitive pressures that that will place on the industry. Far from its being a shambles, we are setting up a whole new structure that will remarkably increase the pace of competition in the industry and the downward pressure on costs. Those things will benefit the consumer.
    Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend will be aware of the plan to place National Power's headquarters in Swindon and those of PowerGen in Birmingham. That will result in Europa house, a regional headquarters in Stockport, being phased out and 600 or 700 jobs being lost or relocated. When the new nuclear company is formed will my hon. Friend consider basing it in Stockport where there already is a dedicated, experienced and hard working staff—especially of women who cannot move elsewhere and who, if they were in the south, would be worth their weight in gold? The present plan is for a headquarters in the midlands and one in the south, and a headquarters in the north-west would be very welcome.
    Mr. Spicer: I know that my hon. Friend has been pressing me hard on behalf of his constituents, whose jobs are at risk. As to whether, under the new arrangements, a headquarters will be placed in his constituency, I cannot give him a definitive answer, but I am sure that his points have been noted.

    British Coal
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Illsley: Did the Secretary of State recently discuss the suggestion which appears to have been put to the Cabinet, that between 12,000 and 30,000 jobs will be lost in the coal industry over the next three or four years? Will he confirm that those job losses will have to be met by compulsory redundancies?
    Mr. Wakeham: No, I did not discuss it in those terms. Coal contracts are a matter for commercial negotiations between the parties. Those are still in progress, and it will be for British Coal to decide what manpower it will require in the light of the tonnage that it can profitably produce and sell in competition with other fuels. I hope that it will get a large slice of the market.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend next talks to the chairman of British Coal, will he point out that although his announcement last week may not have been very good news for the nuclear industry, it is potentially extremely good news for the coal industry and for the future of new coal technologies? Will he point out that the coal industry has everything to gain from increasing its competitiveness and further intensifying its productivity?
    Mr. Wakeham: The chairman of British Coal is a wise and experienced person, and I am sure that he has already taken those points on board. I have no doubt that when I see him again shortly, I shall discuss these matters. My hon. Friend is right—there is a good future for British Coal if it can produce coal at prices that meet those of the competition. I have every reason to believe that it can produce a substantial part of our basic fuel requirements.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that it would be disadvantageous for Britain if we became dependent on foreign coal supplies? Does he accept that a number of foreign coal suppliers are already prepared to sell coal to Britain at a price cheaper than that at which it is available in Europe? Is that not an extremely dangerous position,

    13
    and one which he would do well to advise the country not to accept, as dependence on foreign coal is strategically unwise, and would become enconomically foolish?
    Mr. Wakeham: Dependence upon any form of fuel would be unwise. We require a diversity of supply. As I said in a reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Thursday, British Coal must make itself competitive against not only imported coal but oil and natural gas. That is the challenge for it, and I am sure that it will rise to the occasion.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: As there is likely to be a shortage of electricity in the late 1990s, particularly with the elimination of the three nuclear stations in the programme, how does my right hon. Friend propose to take up the shortfall? Has he discussed this with the chairman of British Coal?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have satisfied myself that there will not be a capacity shortfall. Already, a substantial number of independent projects are coming forward. There is potential for life extension of some plant, and I am wholly confident that our privatisation proposals will ensure that capacity demands are met.
    Mr. Barron: Given that, last week, the Secretary of State announced that the Government would protect the nuclear industry via the British taxpayer, is it fair that the British coal industry, which over the past four years has cut costs by 30 per cent., improved productivity by over 90 per cent. and suffered job losses of 140,000, should lose jobs because of the importation of foreign coal?
    Mr. Wakeham: We are not protecting the nuclear industry in the sense that it will be cash-positive from the day that it is set up. The hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the industry, was less than fair in the way in which he put his supplementary question. He did not mention that the taxpayer has financed over £6·5 billion of investment and provided over £10 billion of grant since 1979. That shows an unrivalled commitment to the coal industry by the Government.
    Mr. Roger King: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the environmental impact of fossil fuel power stations on our ecological system? Did he see "The Money Programme" on BBC2 last night, during which we were told that an American power station has been set up which is energy efficient and, as far as possible, emission proof? The cost of taking out the CO2 has been passed over to a South American country in the form of a grant to plant millions of trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sensitive approach and one which should interest British Coal?
    Mr. Wakeham: British Coal is well aware of the need to improve the environmental acceptability of coal as a fuel, as are the generating companies that will use the fuel. I have no doubt that British Coal will take note of what my hon. Friend said. I do not watch television very often. I feel like my right hon. and noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley: I seem to appear on television more than watch it these days.

    East Midlands Electricity Board
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board; and what matters they discussed.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board regularly and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board, Mr. Harris, and the local manager for the area, Mr. Huddleston, are open, honest and above board? Why has a scandalous document been leaked from the Cabinet? It is all right for the Minister to say that everything is lovely in Nottinghamshire, but we want some honesty, not flannel. The document has the name of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) written all over it. We want some honesty at the Dispatch Box. What jobs will be protected in the Nottinghamshire area—the area that I represent?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman had a good week last week and I hope that he will not push his luck by going completely over the top this week. The substance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is why did the document leak. The answer is that I have no idea.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is it not a fact that the East Midlands electricity board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Harris, is one of our most efficient electricity boards? Is that not because of its dependence primarily on coal? Can my hon. Friend reassure the board's members that it will be given every encouragement to produce a diversified electricity supply?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). The East Midlands electricity board is extremely efficient and a very good board. It relies largely on coal for its electricity. So far this year we have allowed £55 million worth of investment in the Nottinghamshire coal pits. Last year we allowed £73 million worth. With that investment and the increased productivity that the pits are showing, there should be a great future for coal from Nottinghamshire.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman the South of Scotland electricity board; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have met Mr. Miller informally.
    Mr. Hood: Is the Secretary of State aware that Mr. Miller, almost single handedly, has attempted over the past two years to destroy the Scottish coal industry on the altar of buying cheap imported coal from South Africa, Colombia and elsewhere? Given his fetish for nuclear power, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what discussions he intends to have with Mr. Miller on who is to buy expensive ring-fenced nuclear power?
    Mr. Wakeham: These are matters for discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, Mr. Miller is a very successful

    15
    chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board. The nuclear industry in Scotland does not suffer from the same disadvantages of cost that were apparent in England.
    Mr. Wallace: While I am sure that Mr. Miller did not welcome the Secretary of State's announcement last week, I certainly welcome his rather belated rendezvous with reality. Will he be discussing with Mr. Miller and others responsible for the generation of electricity how the Government intend to plug the hole which must now appear in the Government's energy policy, having predicted 10 nuclear power stations in their 1979 manifesto? Will the right hon. Gentleman be increasing resources for the development of alternative fields, renewable resources and energy efficiency, and in particular reversing the cuts in his own energy efficiency office?
    Mr. Wakeham: The biggest single step that any Government could take to improve energy efficiency is to complete the privatisation of the electricity supply industry because the efficient use of energy and the pressure on costs which that will produce will be the most beneficial effects of all. I am perfectly satisfied that there is sufficient capacity for the present and for the future. Substantial numbers of independent projects are coming forward and I believe that they will be highly competitive.

    Energy Sources
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what incentives there will be to develop renewable sources of energy after the reconstruction of the electricity industry.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Renewables will benefit from the non-fossil fuel obligation in general and in particular from the 600 MW of capacity that we have reserved exclusively for them. There are already clear signs that the obligation has provided a considerable encouragement to the development of renewables.
    Mr. Bowden: What steps are my hon. Friend and his Department taking to encourage the exploitation of landfill gas?
    Mr. Spicer: A lot is going on with regard to landfill gas. At the moment 30 landfill gas schemes are operational and a further 30 in the pipeline. Thirteen are generating electricity with a capacity of 16 MW. We expect them to generate 50 MW by 1992 and 150 to 175 MW by the year 2000. We are spending £1 million a year, and we have just produced a video explaining the considerable economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Minister report progress on the plans for the construction of wind generation stations, particularly in Wales? Do the Government intend to increase the megawatt reserve for renewable sources of energy?
    Mr. Spicer: So far as the non-fossil fuel obligation is concerned, we consider that the 600 MW special tranche is adequate at the moment. In future, the Secretary of State will have the power to increase that, should the need arise. Research into wind generation is a major item of expenditure. We are spending £4·5 million on wind development. We expect the wind farm in south Wales to be completed by 1990. There will be one in Cornwall in
    16
    1991 and one in the north-east by 1992. Those three experimental wind farms should be operational by those dates.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that the discovery of the cost of nuclear power did not happen last week or in the past year but has been pointed out at public inquiries into Sizewell B and elsewhere by environmentalists and those who are committed to renewable energy sources for at least a decade? Will the Minister invest the same amount of money in renewable energy sources as the Government and their predecessors have invested in their obsession with nuclear energy?
    Mr. Spicer: The two are totally non-comparable and are two different items of expenditure on research. We have said quite categorically that we shall spend on renewable research what is appropriate to developing that programme as fast as is practicable in terms of market application. We are spending more than ever before on renewables and the budget is rising.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal reasons for the privatisation programme was to enable different sources of energy to have the freedom to raise the capital that they needed in the market? Does he agree that the greatest incentive for renewable energy sources is that as a result of last Thursday's announcement they will find it much easier to raise money in the market?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. He rightly says that one of the advantages of privatisation and of the structure that we have set up for the industry is that it encourages renewable and other sources of energy. We have given renewable resources special protection. As there will no longer be 3 GW of PWR capacity, it will be filled by other sources, including renewables.

    Severn Barrage
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what response he will make to the general report on the Severn barrage project by the Severn barrage study group; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Over the next two years, further work on the Severn barrage will be undertaken. This will include some site-specific environmental work and a study of the organisation and financing issues for a barrage.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at an estimated 5·5p per KW hour, tidal power electricity is not yet competitive, at least in the short-term, but is environmentally much more acceptable than electricity from coal, gas, oil or nuclear sources? As it has infinite life and no decommissioning costs, it could become much more competitive. Does he therefore agree that it is the sort of project that should attract public and private funds?
    Mr Morrison: I half agree with my hon. Friend. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the greenhouse effect, but I hope that he will agree that further inquiries into the environmental impact of a project of this magnitude—it would be vast—should be made. An environmental impact statement, which would cost another £5 million or £10 million, would be necessary before any further decision to go ahead could be taken.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that if the CEGB and the Government had not successively deceived the public about the true cost of nuclear power we would already have a range of tidal barrages around our coast producing the cheapest electricity in the world, in the same way as the power station at La Rance in France is now doing? That distortion was described in the latest statement from National Power, which said that the only reason why it planned to invest in nuclear power was the Government's privatisation proposal and the obligations under that? Will he give an assurence that local authorities in Gwent and other areas will be compensated by the Government for the money that they spent opposing the PWRs at Hinckley point and Wylfa B, because it was entirely the Government's fault that they spent it?
    Mr. Morrison: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that he heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier in Question Time about nuclear power.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to encourage further the insulation of homes, offices and factories to promote the conservation of energy.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The energy efficiency office will continue to encourage the adoption of improved insulation and other energy efficiency measures through its best practice programme and other initiatives.
    The promotion of energy efficiency will remain a high priority over the coming period.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give fresh consideration to the need to conserve energy by better insulation of local authority housing? Will he discuss that matter with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment'? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many tenants living in cold, damp homes would benefit considerably from better insulation and better conservation of energy? Does he agree that this matter should be kept under review and discussed by his Department and the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that discussions take place between the Secretaries of State for Energy and for the Environment about precisely the point that he raises. I refer my hon. Friend to the fact that community insulation projects have managed to do precisely what my hon. Friend would like for several hundred thousands households, most of which are in the public sector.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that his reply seeks to hide the total hypocrisy of the Government on energy efficiency? Does he agree that today's news that sales of energy efficiency products have fallen by 12 per cent. in the past year compared with the previous year shows how mistaken the Government's policy is on energy efficiency? Does he agree that it is similar to the divide in the Government's policy on nuclear power, which was praised to the skies by the Prime Minister last Wednesday, buried by the Secretary of State on Thursday and resurrected by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on Friday in the debate on global warming? Nobody knows what the Government's policy is any more.
    Mr. Morrison: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Government's position. If he had read the newspapers, he would be aware of references to energy efficiency on virtually every page of every newspaper. That is entirely thanks to the Government putting it at the top of the list of priorities some time ago. Our campaign has worked successfully. That is why hundreds of thousands of people take energy efficiency far more seriously than ever before.
    The hon. Gentleman will know also, if he bothers to look at the statistics, that between 1983, when the campaign started, and 1987 some £2·4 billion has been saved, thanks to the work of the energy efficiency office in making everyone aware of energy efficiency. The Government take the matter very seriously.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Hyndburn
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the constituency of Hyndburn in the county palatine.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): In my capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster I have no plans to visit Hyndburn at present.
    Mr. Hargreaves: That is a disappointing reply, although I realise that the last time my right hon. Friend accepted my invitation to visit Hyndburn it cost the Department for which he was then responsible a great deal of money. I ask him to reconsider his reply so that he can see how we spent the money that he allocated to us and how Government money has assisted us in creating new jobs and industry and attracting the Zeri project to Hyndburn, with 2,700 jobs in the pipeline. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that, in this new situation, services at Accrington Victoria hospital are not diminished?
    Mr. Baker: As my hon. Friend well knows, I have visited Hyndburn in many capacities. I remember canvassing for him in the 1983 election, when we won the seat against the odds, and I remember supporting him in 1987. I look forward to supporting him in 1991 or 1992, when he will be returned again as the Member for Hyndburn. One reason why he will be returned is that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by some 56 per cent. over the past three years.
    Mr. Pike: If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to go to Hyndburn, how would he explain to the people of Lancashire and Hyndburn the poll tax bills that they will have to pay, given that more than 70 per cent. of the people in the terraced houses in north-east Lancashire will lose considerably?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should remember that in the first year of the community charge some £700 million will flow to those authorities in receipt of safety net money. In addition, £100 million will flow to those areas which have a low level of domestic rates and there will be £300 million in transitional relief. Many people in Lancashire will benefit from that.

    Heraldry
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any responsibility for heraldry in the duchy.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have no responsibility for heraldry.
    Mr. Baldry: That is a great pity, because a bunch of people are wandering around the country masquerading under the red rose of Lancashire and of St. George. Should not that scandalous state of affairs be reported to the College of Arms, which could then devise a legitimate heraldic device for the group in question—a windbag rampant, perhaps?
    Mr. Baker: Many people in Lancashire bitterly resent the fact that the symbol of Lancashire, the red rose, has been hijacked by the Labour party. The red rose of Lancashire is a symbol of unity, not of division, so its use in that, way is a complete charade because the Labour party has not changed its policies. Its symbol remains the red flag, as was shown by the fact that 10 days ago Labour Members stood up in the Chamber and sang it.

    Duchy Land (Economic Activity)
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last reviewed the level of economic activity on lands owned by the duchy.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The level of economic activity within the Duchy of Lancaster estate is under constant review.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will know from his assiduous attention to the economic activity within the county of Lancashire that that activity is under threat due to the irresponsible action by aerospace workers at the British Aerospace Strand road site in their misguided pursuit of a 35-hour week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this action, which will ruin the productivity and competitiveness of one of Lancashire's most important industries?
    Mr. Baker: I completely support my hon. Friend. With wage demands of that kind, one has to be aware of what will happen to the competitiveness of British industry, which has been improved enormously in the past 10 years in Lancashire, as elsewhere. In the north-west, there has been a 10·4 per cent. increase in the number of businesses since we have been in office, which has added to the prosperity of the north-west. I hope that that will not be weakened or threatened by such irresponsible claims.

    Duchy Business
    Mr Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average number of hours per week he spends on the business of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I spend up to one quarter of my time carrying out my duties as a member of the Government.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the present turmoil of Tory politics, would it not be more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to spend more time on the affairs of the
    20
    Duchy? Does he not consider it appropriate at this stage to pluck up the courage to stand for the leadership of the Tory party? He might even win, and thank me afterwards.
    Mr. Baker: I looked carefully at all the questions asked of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over the past 10 years, and especially those asked of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he held the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster and also the chairmanship of the Tory party. I found that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked almost exactly the same question three years ago. He was saying that that we would not win the 1987 election, but we did. Now he is saying that we shall not win the next election, but we shall—not least because the hon. Gentleman has a very small majority and I look on the constituency of Walsall, North as a Tory gain.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Commission Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what subjects were discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission last met on 16 May when among the subjects discussed was a report by the National Audit Office auditors on accommodation arrangements at the NAO headquarters building.
    Mr. Allen: Has the Chairman met Dr. Bill Jack, the new Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, and, if so, has he discussed with him the levels of staffing and remuneration for that office? Has he had a chance yet to look at the estimates from the Public Accounts Commission?
    Sir Peter Hordern: We have not yet had a chance to meet Dr. Jack since his appointment. However, we were able to meet him before then. On behalf of the House, I congratulate Dr. Jack on his appointment and also to pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Calvert, who bore the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Northern Ireland very well for nine years. The Public Accounts Commission expects to consider the estimates for next year on 12 December.
    Mr. Tim Smith: What steps is the Public Accounts Commission taking to ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions or impediments to the National Audit Office employing the best possible staff at all levels? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Comptroller and Auditor General in particular and his staff generally are paid the proper rate for the job?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The commission is satisfied that the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General are paid at competitive rates and also have the benefit of extra earnings for merit awards. I regret to say, however, that that is not the case for the Comptroller and Auditor General himself or for the Comptroller and Auditor General Northern Ireland. We have made representations on that to the Government and propose to do so again.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when last he visited the county palatine; and what were his official engagements there.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 2 November.
    Mr. Squire: Has my right hon. Friend been able to assist some of the residents of the county palatine? Has he found, as I have found in my constituency, that although people are clear about the Government's defence policies, they are thoroughly confused about the Opposition's defence policies and wholly ignorant of those of the Social Democrats?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must have some relevance.
    Mr. Baker: I am not at all surprised at that——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That topic is way beyond the scope of the question.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When the Chancellor is next in Lancashire, will he consider the appointment of justices of the peace? Does he accept that justices of the peace in the whole of the area for which he is responsible show a preponderance of people from middle-class and Right-wing backgrounds, rather than a good balance across the community? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave a clear commitment in the House to ensure that more JPs came from working-class backgrounds within the area for which he was responsible. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that commitment is carried out?
    Mr. Baker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism, because it is unfair. That aspect of my responsibilities is important. I presided at a magistrates meeting in the Wirral and I am anxious that people appointed to the honourable and important role of justice of the peace represent broad bands of society. I make every effort to ensure that that is the case, as do my advisers.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Archbishop of Canterbury (Rome Visit)
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the cost to the Commissioners of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent visit to Rome.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioners, Representing Church Commissioners): The archbishop's expenses are reimbursed by the Church Commissioners on a quarterly basis. No claim has yet been made in respect of the period in question, but the archbishop's private office was kind enough to tell me informally, in advance of submitting a claim, that the cost was in the region of £8,500.
    Mr. Summerson: As one of the results of the archbishop's visit to Rome was to give comfort to those
    22
    whose activities will cause schisms in the Church of England, will my right hon. Friend consider giving similar resources to those who oppose those activities?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend singles out just one of the matters that divide the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Many sections of the Church of England have expressed gratitude and received encouragement as a result of the archbishop's visit to the Pope.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Televising of Parliament
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to allow hon. Members to have the same facility as some outside organisations in receiving the televised picture of the Chamber in their own offices.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: The Lord President will be aware that more than 40 organisations outside the House will be able to receive the live television pictures, including South African television, Israeli television and Government Departments. At this very moment, Mr. Bernard Ingham—he who must be relayed—may well be receiving the television picture live. For all we know, he may be whispering into the Lord President's ear a startling and direct reply to my question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to extend the facility to hon. Members in their offices?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is essentially a matter not for me but for the House. Sound broadcasting access is accorded to several organisations outside the House and to certain Departments of State. It has been decided that the television feed should be similarly available to those organisations and people. The Select Committee on Broadcasting and subsequently the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House decided that no such facilities should be provided for hon. Members, save in the Lobbies. The reasons given were, first, that it would be expensive—perhaps not the most important reason—secondly, that it would be intrusive to hon. Members who share rooms and, thirdly and most importantly, that it would diminish the likelihood of hon. Members being present in the Chamber. The latter reason impressed the Select Committee and that is how the matter stands.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be a bad idea because, as my right hon. and learned Friend inferred, it would keep hon. Members away from the Chamber? The House has consistently avoided sound radio broadcasting of the proceedings in hon. Members' offices for just that reason. However, as hon. Members in various parts of the House will need to see what is happening in the Chamber, would it not be a good idea for my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss with the House authorities the provision of an adequate number of monitors in various locations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suspect that the provision of monitors may have the same effect, although on a smaller scale as provision in hon. Members' rooms. The Select

    23
    Committee may consider the matter again in the future, but it was unanimous in recommending against provision of facilities beyond those currently available.
    Dr. Cunningham: Will the Lord President of the Council keep an open mind on the matter? Why should we not review it at the end of the experimental period? Is it not rather curious that we are to provide the facility for people in the media and others—who, for all I know, may include press officers in Government Departments—but deny it to hon. Members? Can we not consider the matter again when the experiment is over?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Both the hon. Gentleman and I will have to keep an open mind because we serve on the Select Committee which will be reviewing developments in the months ahead. The matter was considered by the Select Committee, which reached a unanimous conclusion. The burden of proof in the opposite direction must therefore be discharged.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that if Sky Television provides full coverage of the House, as it intends to do, hon. Members will be able to provide facilities in their offices for themselves?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that the technicalities would allow that. The matter would have to be considered by the Select Committee in the light of developments.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the fact that, from next Tuesday, the many organisations that will have access to our televised proceedings, will be able to witness the trivial banter that we have just heard, which is known as questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the question rota, bearing in mind the fact that we have to go through that exercise but have no opportunity to address questions to Scottish Law Officers?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly consider that matter with the seriousness that it deserves, but I repudiate absolutely the allegation that viewers would be unimpressed by the splendid performance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    Members' Staff (Contracts)
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the circular reminding right hon. and hon. Members about the need to provide contracts of employment to the Fees Office in respect of staff to be issued.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Accountant hopes to issue reminder letters to Members later this month.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Lord President confirm that staff employed by hon. Members and paid by the Fees Office are supposed to have contracts of employment lodged with the Fees Office but that on 30 June this year only 709 of the 1,287 staff paid by the Fees Office and employed by hon. Members had such contracts lodged? That is simply not on. Hon. Members are not famed for being good employers and I hope that the Lord President will pursue the matter after the issue of the circular to make sure that the laggards toe the line and become decent employers.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The number of hon. Members who have complied is broadly in line with the figure given by the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the relevant resolution of the House passed on 21 July 1987 makes arrangements requiring a statement to be lodged by hon. Members who use the Fees Office to pay their staff. That followed the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body some time before. The fact that a reminder letter is to be issued later this month shows that the matter is being taken seriously.
    Mr. Squire: The news that the Lord President has just given will be greeted with some concern. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the omissions include staff employed for longer than two or three years? If so, does he agree that that is all the more scandalous?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: In general terms, the documents have been lodged more regularly on behalf of newly employed staff because both employer and employee have been made familiar with the requirement at the start of the contract period, whereas the obligation has not been complied with significantly in respect of longer-serving staff who may well have been accustomed to operating in a more informal world. That is the reason for the difference in the figures.

    Press and Public Relations
    Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average annual expenditure of his office on press and public relations.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Privy Council Office has no budget allocated specifically to press and public relations, and employs no press or information staff. A very small proportion of the office's staffing and administration costs arises from the handling of such matters but it could not be accurately quantified.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Lord President consider that if he had more to spend on press and publicity he would be on a more equal footing with Mr. Ingham, who is increasingly being seen as the real deputy Prime Minister?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is joining the modest band of those obsessed with that proposition. I invite him to repudiate his obsession.

    Division Bells
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will review the procedures for testing Division Bells.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 24 October. I am not aware of any general concern over our current Division Bell testing procedure.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend see what he can do to avoid the disturbance created by testing the Division Bells at 9 o'clock every morning when hon. Members are at their desks trying to work and make telephone calls? What is the statistical justification for testing the Division Bells every day? Could not the engineers test them just as well at 2.30 pm as at 9 am?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The habit of testing the Division Bells by this physical means has been in place for a long

    25
    time. It has been found to be convenient for that relatively unadvanced piece of technology. It seems to work satisfactorily and it does not disturb as many hon. Members at 9 am as it might later in the day. My hon. Friend is among a relatively small minority of hon. Members to be found on the premises complaining about the early testing of the alarm systems.

    Mr. Bernard Ingham
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to improve facilities in the House for the Prime Minister's press secretary.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: As one of the House of Common's best remembered Law Officers, does the Lord President think it proper that we should give House room to a civil servant whom Leon Brittan tells us behaved totally improperly in the matter of the Law Officer's letter—unless, that is, the Prime Minister on 27 January did something which, were I to name it, would lead to my being suspended for 20 days?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member who continues to have that particular obsession, although the House may be glad that it has replaced the Belgrano in his mind. I invite him to give up this obsession as decisively as he gave up the other.

Animal Feed (Lead Contamination)
3.31 pm
Dr. David Clark(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on lead in milk and meat following the discovery of lead in cattle feed.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): A consignment of rice bran was contaminated during its transport from Burma. On its arrival in Belgium the unfit cargo was not destroyed, but sold on and reprocessed into animal feed. The Dutch embassy informed the Ministry's legal department on Wednesday 1 November of a specific consignment thought to be contaminated and delivered to two companies based in Teignmouth and Liverpool. By this time, our own veterinary investigation service had identified from its own investigations a connection between cattle deaths and lead contamination in animal feed.
As soon as my Department learned that contaminated animal feed had been distributed to farms in this country, it took urgent steps to trace the suppliers, merchants and compounders and used their customer lists to warn the farmers concerned. It stopped the movement from these farms of animals and foodstuffs which might have been affected and arranged with the Milk Marketing Board for the segregation of the milk. These voluntary arrangements were confirmed by order under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
The European Commission was also contacted to request urgent investigation of the possibility that this incident was the result of criminal activities in another member state. Throughout all this we have worked closely with the Department of Health. It confirms that, on present evidence, even in the worst case of the maximum possible intake of lead and other metals from this incident, there has been no hazard to human health.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Ministry and the Milk Marketing Board, who have handled the massive task of dealing with the 1,500 or more farms concerned and who are now involved in the testing procedure through which we can continue to protect human health and begin to de-restrict farms. I am sure we all recognise the very severe effects that these strong measures have on the farmers involved. They have shown considerable co-operation and I am sure that they will realise that these restrictions must continue to be maintained as long as is necessary to safeguard the health of the public.
Dr. Clark: We on this side of the House approve of the Government's decision to impose restrictions. First, will the Minister explain why, having been alerted by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture on 1 November to the presence of the lead-contaminated cattle feed in Britain, he waited five days, until 6 November, before imposing restrictions? Why did the Minister not issue a precautionary notice to farmers warning them of the possibility of contamination and asking them to withhold the cattle feed, thus avoiding unnecessary cattle deaths and preventing potentially hazardous milk from entering the food chain?
Secondly, has the Minister seen the report in The Sunday Times that the Milk Marketing Board was not informed of the seriousness of the problem until 5 November—four days afterwards? Why was there that
28
delay? Why did the Minister wait not five but 10 days before commencing the testing of meat for lead? As he knows, it is a potentially dangerous by-product.
I associate the Opposition with the sterling work done by the Ministry officials and the vets. Does the Minister recall informing me in a parliamentary answer that, in the past 10 years, the state veterinary service has been cut by 25 per cent? Will he now reverse that process as a first step to improving our ability to respond to food emergencies such as the one now on our hands?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that most hon. Members would feel that this subject should not be drawn into party political debate, and particularly by armchair critics. On the speed of response, I would prefer to listen to the views put forward by local people. One of the south-west regional chairmen of the National Farmers Union wrote to me yesterday. He said:
"I congratulate you and your staff on the superb reaction to the crisis. I know that Ministry staff and NFU staff have worked all hours since the issue broke and that there has been close co-operation throughout".
That is a fairer statement of what happened.
It will immediately appear to all hon. Members that it would be impossible to ask all farmers to withhold their cattle feed. To suggest that all cattle feed should be withheld because a specific consignment of cattle feed——
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister said—[Interruption.]
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should listen to what his party says. He obviously does not listen to what the Government say.
The most important thing to do was precisely what the Ministry did. It had specific information, it followed up that specific information as fast as was humanly possible, and it made sure that a good deal of the feed did not go out. Much of the rest was recovered, and the farmers were informed so that they did not move cattle or milk from their premises.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) must accept that we brought in the Milk Marketing Board at the very point at which we were able to segregate the milk, which we did on Sunday; that was perfectly proper, and that was the order in which we should have done it. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead people, so I am quite happy for him to go through the details. The hon. Member for Workington always tries to make party political points out of these matters, and enjoys doing so, so I will not listen to him. His hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is a much more decent person and he knows the facts in these matters.
May I explain why we did not test meat earlier? We felt that it was necessary to do things in a proper order. The milk was obviously the biggest and most important matter. Once we had stopped material moving off the farms, it seemed that the first priority was to deal with that product which is in large quantities and which causes considerable storage problems. Therefore, the first thing to do was to test it. Of course, we could not allow any to leave the farms. One must have tests over a period before it is possible to declare that the milk is fit to go back into public supply.
On the testing of meat for lead, the first thing to do is to make sure that there is a proper test to cover not only lead but anything else that might be available, because lead is an impure metal. That is the order in which scientists

29
advised us to do it. We feel that that is the right order, and the farmers certainly feel that that is the right order. No animals are leaving the farms, so there can be no threat to public health. That is the right thing to do. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's argument because no one, apart from himself, thinks that that is the wong way to do it.
I gladly welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the vets. One of the reasons they were able to do the job so well is because of the efficient reorganisation of the state veterinary service which has been carried out over the past 10 years.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: May I say how glad I am that my right hon. Friend has twice visited the area concerned and, I believe, the Starcross veterinary inspection centre in my constituency, which has played a leading part in controlling this imported menace, rather than just sitting in his Department in London and waiting for other people to report to him? That is very much appreciated. May I ask him whether it is not possible to supply the actual figures to farmers who want to know the degree of lead contamination so that they and their general practitioners can make an informed judgment as to whether their families are at risk, who have been drinking the milk concerned?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I had hoped to make such a visit today—indeed, I was on the train today ready to make a further visit down to the south-west but had to return to the House to respond to this important question. I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind his farmers of the statement by the chief medical officer, who said clearly that there was no need for their families to be worried, on the evidence that we have. I do not want anybody to be worried in that way.
However, I have not made that my first priority. My first priority has been to test and to re-test where early tests show that the level of lead in the milk is low. That has enabled such milk to come back into the system, and we have so far allowed 10 farms to do that. The second priority is obviously to test those farms that have not been tested before.
Greater than either of those priorities would be circumstances in which the figures suggested a particular danger on a particular farm. However, there is no such evidence at the moment and those farmers need not be concerned. Without holding up the other testing arrangements, I am making arrangements so that, as soon as is practical, we can provide those figures for each farm. I shall, of course, ensure that the confidentiality of the figures will be as one would want; otherwise, the farmers might be less than happy.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Since the lead in the animal feed was present in sufficient concentration to cause the deaths of about 30 cattle, thousands of calves and cows must have sub-lethal concentrations of lead in their meat and bones. What will the Government do about that? Will they allow and pay for the slaughter of those lead-contaminated cattle to prevent that lead-contaminated beef from getting into the food chain?
Mr. Gummer: The Government will certainly prevent that material from getting into the food chain if there is any danger to the health of the public. That is first and foremost. We will make decisions about what we have to
30
do when we have done the testing and know the extent of the problem and the issues involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there can be circumstances in which lead poisoning gradually diminishes, out of the animal altogether——
Mr. Williams: Very slowly.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but it is the advice of the state veterinary service. That is what happens. I am in the business of using the scientific advice available to us as much as possible; and not of frightening people unnecessarily, while always warning them. On no occasion have any circumstances arisen in which the public has not had all the details, to such an extent that every test result given on all the milk during the past few days has been given out to the public so that people know exactly what is happening, and I shall continue to do that.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wild allegations by the Opposition Members on this issue show that they are the enemy not only of the food industry but of the farming industry also, and of all who work in them?
Mr. Gummer: It is important to say that the public's health comes before anything else. If I am unhappy about one or two of the wilder statements that have been made, it is simply because, by suggesting things that are not true, those doing so are worrying people in circumstances in which they need not be worried, and those who have worked so hard to protect the public may feel that they are being snubbed by some hon. Members.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the existing pressures on farm incomes in many sectors of the agricultural community, does the Minister think that, as a result of this latest problem, the Government might take any steps to compensate those farmers who will incur financial loss as a result of the very necessary restrictions that his Department has sought to impose in this case? The Minister referred to the possibility of the involvement of some criminal organisation in Europe, and as there was press speculation over the weekend, perhaps completely unfair to the Minister, which said that that might have been a smokescreen, has the right hon. Gentleman received any further information from the Commission about its investigations?
Mr. Gummer: On the first question, I have been in touch with the National Farmers Union and I know that Sir Simon Gourlay takes exactly the same view as I have stated publicly—that this is a matter for the courts and not one for compensation. I want to help the farmers as much as possible and, through our legal department and with the NFU and others, I am trying to see how best this matter can be dealt with. We shall, of course, keep farmers in touch with what is happening in Holland and the rest of Europe.
I believe that the only press speculation to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) refers was a comment by the hon. Member for South Shields, the spokesman on agriculture for the Labour party. He suggested—I thought unfortunately, as the facts are exactly opposite—that there was a smokescreen. It is extremely difficult to believe that someone could accidentally turn into cattle feed a

31
substance that was so badly contaminated that it was of a different colour from what it should have been. If that is the case, I cannot believe that it was done by, as someone suggested, a silly accident. That would take a great deal of believing.
From the court transcripts of the first case that has taken place in Holland, I understand that the firm that originally bought this feed and brought it into Antwerp has stated that, on no less than three occasions, it telexed the firm that had been paid to take the feed away and to destroy it to say that that feed was contaminated and had to be destroyed.
There is hardly a question mark as to whether the act was done criminally; the question is who did it, when, and how soon there will be a prosecution.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an Opposition half day. I shall allow two more questions to be put from each side and then we must move on.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency has been affected by the sales of the contaminated foodstuff. My constituents have asked me to pass on to my right hon. Friend their appreciation and thanks for the prompt action that he took and for the courtesy and thoroughness of his officials, with which I am glad to concur. We have a problem in south Derbyshire about contaminated meat. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us about how the carcases will be disposed of so that they cannot enter the human food chain inadvertently?
Mr. Gummer: Those animals that have died from lead poisoning and those that tests are likely to reveal have died from such poisoning will either be buried or incinerated. There is no question of that meat getting into the human food chain. I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words on this matter; she, of all people, knows how important it is.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree with the policy adviser to the NFU who has said that there is already an established trade in contaminated feed? When the right hon. Gentleman says that I am being political, does he understand that I have sat here on four occasions in recent years and today, when we discussed Chernobyl, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and listeria, and have witnessed clear delay from Departments when dealing with those matters? That was especially true of Chernobyl, when I was told at the Dispatch Box——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Keep to this statement, please.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Three years they waited.
Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman uses those three examples, which are not directly involved with this matter, he might know that we were the first Government to warn people about listeria. How that can be described as delay I do not know. As I understand it, we are still the only Government in western Europe who have warned people about that disease.
Our record stands supreme on Chernobyl. As I said to the hon. Gentleman before, I was happy for my wife, who was then carrying one of our children, to eat that lamb and I am still happy that I said that it was safe, because it was. I continue to believe that that is so. I have taken measures on BSE that are tougher than those recommended by scientists. No Government would have taken measures as tough as our own, because we put food safety first. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on those three examples, and he is wrong in this case. We take the view that feed should not be contaminated; that is why we have taken measures as tough as this. If the hon. Gentleman cared about food safety, instead of being interested only in party politics, he would be quiet a bit more often.
Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speed with which his officials met the danger shows that there is absolutely no need for an independent body to be set up to consider food safety, and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has discharged its responsibilities in an excellent way?
Mr. Gummer: I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think that we are the independent body on food safety. That must be so, because our first and primary interest is the protection of the public. Nobody could have moved as fast as we were able to move except a Ministry which was responsible for both food and farming.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What are the levels of lead in the British food chain? When does the Minister expect to get rid of those levels?
Mr. Gummer: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have thought of his question before he got up to speak, because the average level of lead in the food chain is so small as not to be measurable. The question we are interested in is whether the level of lead at any part of the food chain is dangerous to public health. The Department of Health has made it clear that no one need have any worry on that account.

East Germany
3.51 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The implications of this weekend's events in East Germany for Britain's foreign and European policy."
I know that these are dull words, particularly when it has been a weekend of such extraordinary hope and excitement. To watch on one's television screens great engines tearing holes in the Berlin wall was for me an extraordinary experience. For me it was a wondrous sight to watch people flooding through the gaps where previously they would have feared a bullet in the back. We cannot let such an event pass and not respond to it.
I did my national service in Berlin long ago, before the wall was built. I have visited the city many times since and I identify—as we all should in this free Parliament—with what has been the most dramatic and marvellous demonstration of the power of free thought that we have seen since the war.
Yesterday, like most hon. Members—and like you Mr. Speaker—I marched in a Remembrance day parade. I remembered my father telling me about the bloody days in the trenches in Flanders. I recalled the doctor from the wee village on Skye in which I was brought up, whose job it was to attend Heinrich Himmler after his suicide. I remembered also my friends in Berlin and the troubles that they had had. I remembered that they were throwing off a new tyranny and that we were seeing the birth of an optimism that I—and I am sure many other hon. Members—have never known.
We all make banal speeches about historic moments but this is a real, tangible and marvellous historical moment and we should not let it pass. We should debate the matter and celebrate with our German friends the possibility of a new and far better future. That is my case.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The implications of this weekend's events in East Germany for Britain's foreign and European policy."
I do not in any way under-estimate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said or of the momentous events unfolding in Europe. However, as he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the terms of the Standing Order and, if so, whether a debate should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. In this case, the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.54 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am looking for your assistance. At a time when the Berlin wall is being reduced to rubble, the
34
iron curtain is melting before our eyes and the most momentous events for over 40 years are taking place in our continent, it appears that the Opposition believe that the most important action for the House to take is to debate events in Cambodia. Every newspaper and television channel in this country is debating these momentous events, yet we——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Marlow: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that we in this democratic assembly in the United Kingdom are being asked by the Opposition to debate events in Cambodia when the European Commission and everybody else in this country are debating the momentous events in eastern Europe, central Europe and our continent. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of this House, to use what influence you have to ensure that we debate the real and important issues which face the future of our continent and our country rather than faraway issues of half a continent away.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate what he has said about the great importance of these events. There will, perhaps, be an opportunity to dwell on them in next Wednesday's debate on developments in the European Community.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to put this on record firmly and squarely, because what has just been said is a disgrace to your office. Would you confirm that, while the map of Europe is being redrawn this weekend—I concur wholly with what was said earlier by the representative of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—nevertheless, it is open to the Government to move to suspend the debate between 7 and 10 pm tonight? Therefore, instead of debating £500,000 of ratepayers' money which is to be spent on a road race Bill, we could debate the momentous events in eastern Europe.
Mr. Speaker: This is an Opposition day——
Mr. Rooker: Take off the Private business.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means who put it down.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on events which took place over the weekend. You may well have read a series of newspaper articles involving the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in this Chamber we do not need to involve individuals in arguments of that kind. This is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, you have not heard me.
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard what the hon. Member has to say, but I can sense it.
Mr. MacKay: I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, are mistaken. I was going on to say that I thought that those articles were full of unworthy innuendoes towards the hon. Member for Bolsover. In order to clear his name, I sought your guidance as to whether the articles constituted a breach of privilege and should be referred to the Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman alleges that, he should write to me in the usual way.
Mr. Barry Field: Further to my point of order of Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek your guidance. As the champion of the rights of Back Benchers, for which you are justifiably revered, could you advise the House how it was possible for discussions to take place on the private business of this House—the Isle of Wight Bill—on the Adjournment of the House without involving me? The Social and Liberal Democrats were not present throughout the whole of that debate, despite the fact that they control the Isle of Wight county council. Could you say whether, if they had been present, they would have been entitled, as a minority party, to participate in the negotiations, and possibly have saved the Bill?
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not in any way responsible for what may go on in private discussions outside the Chamber. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that a large number of private Bills are currently held up. In procedural terms, nothing out of order has taken place.
Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that a perfectly good report by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure is before the House and that, if the House implemented it quickly, many problems to do with private business could be resolved?
Mr. Speaker: I can confirm that. I also heard—I hope the hon. Gentleman and the House heard it too—the Leader of the House say at business questions last Thursday that he intended to look into the matter urgently and would seek to deal with it.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the guardian of the liberties and privileges of the House, you have often made it clear that it is precisely because those privileges have been so long fought for that they should be used rarely and for good reason. I was therefore delighted by what you said earlier this afternoon, and I take it that when hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), try to smear people outside the House under the power of privilege, you will call them up short. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made was fair——
Mr. Skinner: I do not use privilege for protection.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the reputation of the House is in any way enhanced by drawing attention to matters of that kind.

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY] [SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  Cambodia
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
  That this House records its profound concern at the continuing tragedy of Cambodia; calls on Her Majesty's Government not to sponsor any resolution at the United Nations which directly or indirectly gives support or comfort to the Khmer Rouge or its allies, and in the debate in the General Assembly on Wednesday to repudiate specifically Thiounn Prasith of the Khmer Rouge as delegate of Cambodia; insists that the Government provides clear answers to allegations that British military personnel have been providing training for forces fighting alongside Khmer Rouge forces, and ends forthwith any such training; believes that no aid other than humanitarian aid should be provided for any group or objective in Cambodia; and asks that such aid be increased substantially.
  The intervention earlier by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who I notice has sloped off after making it, brought great discredit on him and on anyone who agreed with him. I am second to none in my praise for and excitement about what is taking place in East Germany and Berlin today. I was there yesterday and was able to see something of it for myself. But the tragedy of Cambodia, a country in which up to 2 million people were slaughtered in the most appalling way by a regime of profound inhumanity, is a matter which the House is right to debate—especially since, on Wednesday this week, the United Nations General Assembly is to debate Cambodia. The Opposition have used the time available to them so that the House can state its views on this agonising issue before the United Nations debate.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that I was trying to change the debate on Cambodia—we could well have debated East Germany tomorrow.
  Mr. Kaufman: I fully accept that. I know, from his presence here, that the hon. Gentleman cares about this issue.
  Not only do we believe that two days before the United Nations debates Cambodia the House should discuss it, but we believe that the time has come for the United Kingdom Government to reassess and fundamentally to change their policy towards Cambodia. Throughout the world Cambodia has become a symbol of all that is most savage and unacceptable in the conduct of political relations and military activity; it is now a synonym for the depths of inhumanity to which those who wield power can descend in their maltreatment of the people whose lives they control.
  The murder, torture and suppression of human rights and freedom associated with the name of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge can be compared in scale and horror only to Adolf Hitler's holocaust. It is easy for everyone, including the British Government, to say that the Khmer Rouge must never return to power in Cambodia, but

  37
  unless there is a total change in policy towards Cambodia by our Government and by other nations there is a real danger that the Khmer Rouge will return to power there. Those armies are dominated by the Khmer Rouge and are fighting their way into Cambodia. Unless they are halted, they may overturn the Government of Cambodia, the Government of Hun Sen.
  The allegedly acceptable face of those armies is Prince Sihanouk, the perpetual prince over the water of Cambodia. The largest part of those armies belongs to the Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk's so-called Democratic Coalition is dominated by the Khmer Rouge. Last month The Independent said:
  "All the CGDK declarations, including Prince Sihanouk's recent five-point peace plan, are written by the Khmer Rouge, and simply presented to Sihanouk and the KPNLF leader Son Sann, to sign."
  The coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea— so-called—has as its diplomatic representatives people who in number and importance are dominated by the Khmer Rouge. For example, the so-called Foreign Minister of that coalition was Head of State during Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia.
  The British Government are playing an active part in assisting the armies that are dominated by the Khmer Rouge and in seeking to remove from power in Cambodia the Hun Sen regime that is today that country's legal and de facto Government. The rationale of those policies is that Hun Sen was placed in power by Vietnamese forces. There is truth in that, but whatever may be said against the Vietnamese it must be said in their favour that they drove out Pol Pot. It must also be said that the removal of Pol Pot by the Vietnamese has counted less with the United States Administration than the fact that it was the Vietnamese who removed him.
  Because Vietnam inflicted on the United States the most humiliating defeat on the battlefield that the Americans had ever suffered, United States policy has been dominated by the compulsion to oppose anything with which the Vietnamese are associated. That is a foolish and dangerous motivation to govern the foreign policy of any great power. It is especially regrettable in the case of the United States which, under President Bush, has in many areas made changes in foreign policy that are beneficial and admirable. One can cite the change in policy towards the middle east and in arming the Contras and the way in which the Americans are enhancing the Reagan initiatives in negotiation with the Soviet Union on nuclear disarmament. It is particularly regrettable that on this issue the Bush Administration are continuing the vindictive policies of the Reagan Administration towards Cambodia.
  In the case of Cambodia, the United States motivation has led to a profoundly wrong policy, not only on the part of the Americans but by other countries. Taking into account the situation since the Tiananmen square massacre, it is deplorable and even ugly that the policy of the United States and that of China towards Cambodia should be the same. It is an unholy alliance because of the shared loathing by both countries of Vietnam.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the absolutely amazing and excellent article by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? It states:
  "The main difference is that the Americans killed thousands of Cambodian civilians in their attempts to destroy
  38
  North Vietnamese supply lines whereas the Vietnamese invasion ended the systematic murder of Cambodians by their own 'government'."
  Mr. Kaufman: Yes, I have seen that article. I thought that it was an outstanding contribution to the discussion, and I am only sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), no doubt because of other pressing engagements, cannot be here to express the same sentiments.
  That would be particularly valuable because while the United States and China are at one in opposing a sensible solution for Cambodia, other Governments have allowed themselves to be dragged along by the White House and the State Department. I am sorry to say that the British Government are one of those Governments.
  The extent to which British Government policy is dictated by the State Department can best be gauged from a speech on Cambodia made in the House on 21 January last year by the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). I reread that speech at the weekend. After nearly two years and in the light of changing events, I found it deeply obnoxious. Speaking of the Hun Sen regime, he said:
  "Without the presence of massive Vietnamese forces, the regime simply would not exist."
  The Vietnamese forces have been withdrawn from Cambodia and the regime still exists. The hon. Gentleman continued, in squalid and sneering language:
  "We cannot accept that at this time we should give development assistance to a regime which depends for its very existence on Vietnamese occupying forces. We cannot allow Vietnam to bankroll its oppression of Cambodia with western aid."—[Official Report, 21 January 1988; Vol. 125, col. 1225.]
  The Vietnamese forces are gone, but for Cambodia there is still no British development assistance and still no western aid. To justify this, the Government have now changed their rationale. Last month, the Minister for Overseas Development said:
  "We remain convinced that our policy of not offering direct Government to Government aid to the Heng Samrin regime in Phnom Penh is right in present circumstances. We have no wish to sustain an unrepresentative regime spawned by the illegal Vietnemese occupation."
  Once again, Vietnam, rather than the needs and the plight of Cambodia, is dominating Government policy.
  Let us be clear. The suffering people of Cambodia are being punished for the American defeat in Vietnam. Led by the United States, with Britain as a compliant follower, the world community has blacklisted Cambodia. The result for that poverty-stricken land has been not only terrible suffering but a reverse in the progress that was being made in combating disease and deprivation. Children are dying in Cambodia from diarrhoea and other diseases in terrifying numbers. They die, among other reasons, because of the dreadful state of the water supply. Aid could help to improve the water supply yet, inexcusably, Cambodia is the only country in the world to be denied United Nations development aid.
  In a recent leading article, The Times said:
  "Now that that invasion"——
  the Vietnamese invasion—
  "is at an end—so long as it is not perpetuated by proxy—there is no reason why generous aid for humanitarian projects or to assist Vietnam's incipient economic reform should not begin."
  The Times is right in its argument, but mistaken in its conclusion, because there is, unfortunately, a valid reason why such aid is not provided by the United Nations. It is

  39
  because Cambodia is represented at the United Nations not by the Government who hold power but by the exiled opposition, the so-called coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. The United Nations delegate of that bogus organisation, Thiounn Prasith, was a close adviser of Pol Pot during his years in Government, and is still a crony of Pol Pot's.
  An avowed representative of the Khmer Rouge has been put into the United Nations by other countries as the representative of Cambodia, when he does not represent Cambodia at all. His presence at the United Nations misrepresents Cambodia but gives an international validity to the Khmer Rouge and allows it to influence United Nations policy and international attitudes to Cambodia.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to his being a member of the Khmer Rouge, three of Thiounn Prasith's brothers held three of the 10 posts in the Pol Pot regime's Government between 1975 and 1979? That family above all is connected with what happened at that time.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for placing that on the record. He, like others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, has a long, honourable and constructive record of fighting on this issue.
  In a curious and opaque written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) last week, the Foreign Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman has explained to me why he cannot be here today—stated:
  "The report of the UN credentials committee again recommended acceptance of credentials of Democratic Kampuchea for the Cambodian seat and was approved without a vote."—[Official Report, 8 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 645.]
  The Foreign Secretary did not explain why there was no vote. He did not explain why the British Government did not vote against the seating of a Pol Pot crony as a representative of Cambodia at the United Nations. I regret to say that the Government have an odd and equivocal attitude towards the Khmer Rouge. The Prime Minister and others assert that they never wish to see Pol Pot back in power in Cambodia, but it is deplorable that the Government are shifting in their attitude towards the Khmer Rouge.
  Last year, during a television interview, the Prime Minister was asked about the Khmer Rouge. The right hon. Lady stated:
  "There is a much more reasonable grouping within the Khmer Rouge."
  When asked to amplify that statement, she said:
  "That is what I am assured by people who know, so that you will find that the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future Government."
  It is a matter for concern to us all to discover who these "reasonable" ones in the Khmer Rouge, as cited by the Prime Minister, may be.
  In a television programme two weeks ago—a programme which produced an enormous response from the public, as every hon. Member knows from his or her postbag—John Pilger tried to find the answer to the question that must follow the Prime Minister's statement. He put the question to the responsible Minister from the
  40
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Brabazon of Tara. In a singular and bizarre interview, Lord Brabazon replied,
  "I don't know their names."
  He continued:
  "Well, there are obviously some more reasonable than others."
  He could not say who they are. All the same, the Government continued to recommend that the Khmer Rouge should be included in the Cambodian Government.
  A Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing document reads:
  "To exclude the Khmer Rouge completely from the transitional process could have the effect that we all want to avoid. It might drive their still powerful army into guerrrilla warfare."
  Where are these people living? The "still powerful army" of the Khmer Rouge is involved in guerrilla warfare. It is involved in the invasion of Cambodia from Thailand. It dominates the armies that are invading Cambodia. The Government continue to say, however, that the Khmer Rouge should be part of Cambodia's Government.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: My right hon. Friend presents a powerful indictment of the Government. Does he recall that last week I asked the Prime Minister whether she felt happy that the Foreign Secretary was sitting next to Pol Pot representatives, and that the right hon. Lady refused to answer?
  Mr. Kaufman: I well recall that intervention by my hon. Friend, because I thought that the Prime Minister would try to respond to the valid and important point he raised. But instead, she made a cheap joke which demonstrated once again, as did the intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, North before today's debate began, that the killing, suffering, ordeal and plight of Cambodia matter little to some members of the Government and to the Conservative party.
  The latest pronouncement on the subject was made on 1 November by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who I understand is to speak next, when he replied to an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. In that notorious speech, the Minister announced:
  "I have only two minutes to devote to Cambodia."
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Before this becomes a legend—the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, (Mrs. Clwyd) will remember this—the right hon. Gentleman will recall that there are 30 minutes for Adjournment debates. My hon. Friend the member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) spoke for his full time and then there was an intervention from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley leaving me only four minutes in which to reply.
  Mr. Kaufman: I read the debate in full. I recognise that the Minister had little enough time to reply, but instead of reading from his brief, he might have rejigged his speech to deal with what is a paramount issue in the House.
  Mr. Jim Lester: It is very unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to charge my hon. Friend the Minister with any discourtesy. He tried enormously hard in a very short time to fulfil his requirement. My hon. Friend had flown in from Washington the night before. In those circumstances, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley

  41
  (Mrs. Clwyd) and I felt that it was more important to get on record our concerns than to get a reply which I hope we shall get today.
  Mr. Kaufman: Obviously I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I quote what the Minister said in the two minutes that he was able to devote to the subject. He said:
  "Absorption of some part of the Khmer Rouge movement might diminish the power of the rest of the movement".
  He went on to advocate
  "the attempt to include some part of the Khmer Rouge movement—but not the Pol Pot supporters—in a future Government."—[Official Report, 1 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 444.]
  So in his two minutes the Minister managed to cram in a recommendation that the Khmer Rouge should be part of the Cambodian Government.
  What it all comes back to is that the Government, without the Prime Minister or any other Minister being able to specify or name those reasonable members of the Khmer Rouge, are ready to advocate Khmer Rouge membership of a Cambodian Government. Let us be clear that their objective is to get rid of the present Cambodian Government. Their explanation is simple—they claim that that Government are in power only because they are propped up by Vietnamese forces. There are no Vietnamese troops in Cambodia, yet there are Khmer Rouge troops, who the Foreign and Commonwealth Office readily admits are a powerful army and whose flag flies at the United Nations because no country opposes the Khmer Rouge delegate there and because each year Britain and other countries support the continued efforts of the Khmer Rouge and its allies to take over power in Cambodia.
  In a speech in the House last year, the hon. Member for Enfield, North described the Government's stance as
  "a ringing endorsement of the rights of the Cambodian people."—[Official Report, 21 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 1225.]
  That was his description of the United Nations' annual debate on Cambodia, but every year the United Nations once again endorsed the Khmer Rouge representative as the alleged representative of Cambodia.
  If Jane's Defence Weekly is anything to go by, another ringing endorsement of the rights of the Cambodian people by the Government is the provision of training by British forces for troops fighting alongside the Khmer Rouge to overturn the present Government of Cambodia. Jane's Defence Weekly says that that has been going on for four years. When the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister were asked about that on Thursday 2 November in the House of Commons, they dodged the question eight times. The deputy Prime Minister said that it was not the practice to give details of training by British special forces of foreign troops.
  The Government cannot hide behind that formula any longer. Only last year, the Prime Minister boasted about British forces training Zimbabwean troops. On 19 July, she said that such training was "greatly appreciated." If that information can be given about training Zimbabwean troops, it must be given about training Cambodian troops. Unless the Minister states unequivocally this afternoon that British service men have not been training Cambodian forces, we shall take it, by his silence or lack of response, that those authoritative allegations are true. We shall have to proceed in the knowledge that the Government are taking positive steps to subvert by force the present regime
  42
  in Cambodia by assisting fighting men who are part of an army dominated by what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office calls the
  "powerful army of the Khmer Rouge."
  As the Financial Times stated recently in a leading article,
  "the Khmer Rouge remains a force to be reckoned with in Cambodia—and one even given a kind of legitimacy by Western Governments."
  The Government provide that legitimacy by training troops allied to the Khmer Rouge and by co-sponsoring at the United Nations a resolution which, unless it is changed radically as a result of the Foreign Secretary's announcement last week, speaks of the
  "continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces under the leadership of Samdech Norodom Sihanouk to achieve the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status of Kampuchea."
  That is to be attained by legitimising forces dominated by the Khmer Rouge.
  As The Times stated in a leading article this month,
  "power sharing is simply not in the Khmer Rouge vocabulary, except as a back door route to ultimate and absolute control."
  The Government are conniving in the ultimate and absolute control of Cambodia by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
  The Labour party advocates a complete change of policy by the British Government. We believe that they should not continue to co-sponsor the resolution that is before the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. I have been notified of a change to the draft resolution. The great alteration that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced to the House in answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe amounts to the changing of two or three odd words. The phrase
  "continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces"
  is changed to
  "the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean people."
  What is that cosmetic alteration meant to prove? What struggle is there against the present Cambodian Government other than the armed struggle by the Khmer Rouge? It is a piece of sophistry by the Government to believe that, by changing that word, or one or two others, in the resolution, they can delude us into believing that they are changing their policy.
  The Government should abandon their sponsorship of that resolution. I understand that the Swedish Government have done so, and I hope that other Governments are considering doing so.
  What is more, we believe that the British Government's support should be withdrawn from the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and from Prince Sihanouk unless he repudiates any connection with the Khmer Rouge and rids his so-called coalition of the Khmer Rouge. We believe, with The Times, that the Government should consider recognising the Hun Sen Government. On 2 November, The Times said:
  "There is a case for shortcircuiting the niceties of diplomacy, and recognising the Phnom Penh regime without waiting for a comprehensive political solution. Mr. Hun Sen's government is not a pleasant one. It holds political prisoners and has little time for free speech and multi party-politics. But it has begun religious and economic reforms, encouraging private businesses and allowing farmers to own their land. It has adopted a policy of non-alignment, and it would no longer be accurate to dismiss Mr. Hun Sen as Hanoi's puppet."
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made precisely the same point in his important article in The

  43
  Guardian today. It is about time that the Government stopped being a victim of the United States' delusion about Vietnam and acted for themselves properly and sensibly on this issue.
  We believe that, from the starting point of recognition today of the existing Government in Phnom Penh, Britain should end its part in the inexcusable aid boycott of Cambodia. There is reason to believe that, despite the Foreign Secretary's claim last week in answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe—
  "We stipulate that none of our aid should reach the Khmer Rouge."—[Official Report, 8 November 1989, Vol. 159, c. 645.]—
  such aid as is at present intended for Cambodians living in the camps along the Thai-Cambodian border may get into the hands of the Khmer Rouge. The Foreign Secretary announced in his answer that there would be some direct aid to Cambodia, but we believe that British aid for Cambodia should be substantially increased and should go into Cambodia on a large scale to alleviate the terrible suffering of the people of that country. What the Foreign Secretary offered last week is completely inadequate to meet the scale of the need. Once again, it is governed by an obsession with the nature of the Government in Phnom Penh compared with that which is to replace them, and which the Government are assisting.
  Mr. Julian Amery: In an otherwise powerful speech, which I very much respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not yet touched on the Paris conference, where all these matters were discussed at great length, nor has he attempted to say where responsibility lies for the failure of that conference.
  Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman properly points out, the Paris conference was a failure. It was a failure because many of the main parties to it started from the clear assumption that they could not accept the Government in Phnom Penh and somehow had to get involved with the ragbag coalition behind Prince Sihanouk. Until we move away from that posture, which is invalid and unacceptable, there will be no progress towards settlement in Cambodia.
  We believe that the Government should start the process which we have recommended the day after tomorrow in New York, when the United Nations debates Cambodia. The Government cannot attempt to convince anybody in the House who has studied these matters carefully that the cosmetic alteration to the resolution will begin to meet the needs of the situation. The Government should even now challenge the presence at the United Nations of the Khmer Rouge delegate. It is open to them to do so if they wish. They can, if they wish, call for a vote on the seating of the Cambodian delegate. They can, if they wish, demand that any resolution that they co-sponsor should call for the seating of the Khmer Rouge representative to be reviewed in the light of the Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia.
  The Times, in its leading article on 2 November, said that, directly and indirectly, the British Government, with other Governments, were helping to make possible the return to power in Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge. It pointed out:
  44
  "The Khmer Rouge when in power depopulated the towns, and systematically starved and murdered thier countrymen. The absolute priority is to deprive them of a second opportunity."
  Let us make no mistake: any country that directly or indirectly helps to make possible the return of the Khmer Rouge to power in Cambodia is colluding in a repetition of the atrocities in Cambodia which have added new words to the world's political dictionary and which are branded on the minds and consciences of millions throughout the world, including many British people. We speak this evening for those millions in urging a change of British Government policy on Cambodia. If the Minister does not announce such a change, we shall tonight not only speak for the millions who care, but register our votes for them.
  4.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the Government's consistent refusal to give support to either the PRK or the murderous Khmer Rouge; commends its commitment to finding a peaceful and comprehensive settlement endorsed by the Cambodian people; and welcomes the increased assistance which the Government is providing for the innocent victims of this tragic conflict.'.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was eloquent, and no one doubts the genuine care and passion that have gone into it.
  I genuinely welcome this debate, because this is a difficult and important subject. It is a welcome opportunity to describe in detail the consistency of British Government policy, both under the present and the preceding Labour Administrations, in condemning the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978, in refusing to have dealings with the Phnom Penh regime or to support the Khmer Rouge in any way and in a steady commitment to a sovereign, independent, neutral Cambodia, with the Cambodian people deciding their own future through free and fair elections.
  We are witnessing the collapse of worldwide Communism. Regional conflicts, such as Cambodia and Afghanistan, should be soluble on the basis that the long-suffering people themselves decide under which form of government they want to live. That is our policy, and doubtless that of the Opposition as well.
  The Opposition motion concentrates heavily and rightly on the paramount need——
  Mr. Heffer: Will the Minster give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I then want to develop my argument.
  Mr. Heffer: This is an important point. The Minister said that the Government had never given support to the Khmer Rouge, but have the Government ever challenged the credentials of those who sit in the United Nations and who are known to be Khmer Rouge?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come to that very point in the central part of my speech, so I ask the hon. Gentlemen to be patient for a short time.
  If the motion had said simply that it was intolerable to support the Khmer Rouge, there would have been no

  45
  problem about accepting it. Let us be clear at the outset that the Khmer Rouge is a particularly evil mutation of Communism and Pol Pot a particularly evil man.
  The Khmer Rouge was helped to power in 1975 by the then North Vietnam. From 1975 to 1978, the Vietnamese leadership repeatedly praised the Khmer Rouge and its
  "precious assistance to the revolutionary cause",
  and attacked the West and the United States for slandering the regime. That was done while mass murder was being committed. Also during that terrible period, there were those in the West who chose to be silent about what was going on inside Cambodia and who denounced atrocity reports as American fabrications, aimed at ex post facto justification of United States involvement in the Vietnam war. One such was the ineffable Professor Noam Chomsky. Such people, including journalists, are not well placed to lead moral crusades, least of all against the West, when it might stimulate us to look back at what they were writing at the time.
  The attitude of the then Labour Government to the murderous Pol Pot regime was stated by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Evan Luard, on 30 March 1977 in reply to a Conservative Member's request that the large-scale slaughter in Cambodia should be raised in the Security Council. Mr. Luard replied:
  "With regard to Cambodia, however much we may deplore the situation there, it is clear that till is primarily a domestic matter, and, therefore, not a matter for the United Nations."—[Official Report, 30 March 1977: Vol. 929, c. 379.]
  Nevertheless, that attitude, happily, soon changed. In 1978, the British Government took the lead in raising the situation in Cambodia at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and called for an inquiry.
  At the end of 1978, following an increasingly anti-Vietnamese line by the Pol Pot regime, the Vietnamese invaded. The Soviet Union vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Cambodia in the wake of that invasion.
  Mr. Mullin: The Minister missed out a small matter in his history of the conflict. The Vietnamese invasion was not unprovoked. It followed attacks by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge on border provinces, in which perhaps 20,000 men, women and children were horribly butchered. There were similar attacks on and around the border of Thailand, but we choose to forget that. In addition, several hundred thousand refugees fled Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, so terrible was life there. Whether the Vietnamese invasion was right or wrong, we should not ignore the reasons for it.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Perhaps I made an understatement when I said that the Khmer Rouge took an increasingly anti-Vietnamese line. There were serious attacks by the Khmer Rouge on Vietnam.
  When the people's army of Vietnam had overrun the country, its tanks were only a matter of hours from Bangkok. Naturally, Thailand and its friends and allies were alarmed. As I am sure the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will agree—indeed, he has just confirmed it—the Vietnamese invaded for strategic reasons. As Thailand's Foreign Minister, Nguyen Co Thach, later told Congressman Solarz:
  "Human rights was not a question; that was their problem … We were concerned only with security."
  46
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Evan Luard, stated on 21 March 1979:
  "I do not think that two wrongs make a right. Therefore, however bad the human rights situation was in Cambodia, I do not think that it excuses an almost equally bad situation in Vietnam. It does not excuse an attack by Vietnam on Cambodia."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1479.]
  The Minister of State, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, referred to
  "one dictatorship imposed upon another."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 February, 1979, Vol. 398 c. 1385.]
  At the same time, the Government decided to terminate most aid to Vietnam. Mr. Luard stated:
  "since 1978 Vietnamese policies on human rights, over the exodus of boat refugees and in relation to Cambodia have caused us increasing concern … Because of our concern about recent developments in Vietnamese policy we have cancelled most of this aid."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1478.]—
  that is, bilateral aid. We continued the same policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that on 3 July 1979, when she stated:
  "There will be no more aid to Vietnam so long as the present circumstances continue."—[Official Report, 3 July 1979; Vol. 969, c. 1117.]
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South raised the often misunderstood question of the recognition of Governments and of credentials. Since 1980, Britain has recognised states, not Governments. One advantage of that is that we do not have to judge between competing claimants in circumstances of civil war or conflict. But in 1979, the position was different. Our criterion then for recognition of a Government was whether or not it had effective control over the greater part of the country. That was not a moral criterion, simply a descriptive criterion, and it led us to abandon recognition of the Khmer Rouge Government in 1979.
  As we now recognise states, not Governments, our only judgment is whether there is a Government within a country with which we are able to deal. Obviously the extent of that Government's ability of themselves to control their territory, will be one consideration. So will the assessment of British interests. At present, we recognise no Government in Cambodia.
  There is also the separate issue of Cambodian credentials at the United Nations, which is mentioned in the motion. It is clear that the credentials committee could find no technical or legal reason for debarring the Cambodian delegation from this year's General Assembly. It is equally clear that, if there had been a vote in the General Assembly, the so-called coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea would have won it overwhelmingly. This has not, therefore, been the most profitable pressure point on which to concentrate.
  As I have said, neither our recognition of the reality of the situation, nor any other action of ours implies recognition of the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea or any other party as the legitimate Government in Cambodia. A dispute over credentials might also have split the unity of the Association of South-East Asian Nations which we hoped would be the principal vehicle for diplomatic progress towards a settlement in Cambodia.
  We are adopting our stance at the United Nations. We have taken action with our friends and partners to modify the draft resolution which we, with 74 other member states, are co-sponsoring at the United Nations General Assembly in the debate on 15 November. The changes are

  47
  intended to make it clear that the situation in Cambodia has altered and that we do not support the Khmer Rouge in any way. They have been welcomed by Hanoi.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am aware that these are difficult diplomatic issues. Does the Minister accept that to object to the credentials of the Government of Kampuchea presently represented at the United Nations would at least facilitate a debate on the matter, but would not necessarily precipitate a vote, with the adverse results that he anticipates?
  Mr. Waldegrave: All the expert advice from our mission to the United Nations is that such a move would be wrong.
  As I said, the main thrust of British-Cambodian policy was laid down during the 1978–79 period and has been consistent ever since.
  Mr. Pat Wall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: No. If I continue to give way, there will be no time for anyone else to speak in the debate.
  Our policy has been to secure the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from the country which they invaded and to allow the Cambodian people themselves to decide their own government. It seeks to prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge to power and to avoid providing legitimacy for a regime of former Khmer Rouge officers, originally imposed by Vietnamese bayonets. Since Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units, our policy has had some success, although the need for self-determination for Cambodia and for arrangements which prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge remain as strong as ever.
  Despite regular comdemnation by the international community at the United Nations over the past decade, it was not until this September that Vietnam finally decided to withdraw its combat units. We believe that this represents another result of Mr. Gorbachev's pragmatic and positive foreign policy. On 5 April 1989, in a tripartite declaration with Laos and the Phnom Penh regime, the Vietnamese Government announced their intention to withdraw their troops unconditionally by the end of September, while asserting the right to return if the need arises.
  That announcement led to the courageous decision of the French Government to convene an international conference in Paris in August. The purpose was to put in place a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the problem, including an international control mechanism, before Vietnamese troops withdrew at the end of September. It was hoped that the withdrawal would then be internationally monitored.
  The conference was a race against the Vietnamese deadline. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord Brabazon participated in that conference, which made a good start. French and Indonesian diplomacy persuaded all four Cambodian factions—that is, the Phnom Penh regime, the two non-Communist factions, and the Khmer Rouge—to sit down together at the same negotiating table behind one plaque entitled "Cambodia". That that was possible at all was also in large measure due to the efforts of Prince Sihanouk, still the only person in a position to claim widespread allegiance in Cambodia.
  48
  The Paris conference decided that the objective should be a comprehensive settlement. It therefore set up three working committees. The first was on a ceasefire and the operation of an effective international control mechanism to supervise and control the comprehensive implementation of a settlement. The second was to define the commitments of participating states to guarantee the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutrality of Cambodia, to ensure the cessation and non-recurrence of all foreign interference and external arms supplies and to prevent the recurrence of genocidal policies and practices—the return of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge—and the return of foreign interference—Vietnamese re-invasion.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What evidence is there that, to use the Minister's words, Prince Sihanouk was the only person with widespread influence in Cambodia? Some of us who were there a long time ago doubted it then, and there is every reason to doubt it now.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The phrase that I used was "widespread allegiance". The best evidence to give—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a question, and perhaps he would like to hear the answer. The best evidence is to be found in the steps that led to the creation of that joint delegation in Paris. I do not believe that that would have come about without Prince Sihanouk's intervention, which showed that he still carries considerable influence. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's scepticism, but Prince Sihanouk is perhaps the best there is.
  The Paris conference decided that the objective should be a comprehensive settlement. The third of the three committees was to define the conditions that would enable refugees and displaced persons to return home if they so desired and to prepare the main elements of an international plan for the reconstruction of Cambodia. All those elements are necessary if settlement is to be truly comprehensive and not partial. Most encouraging of all was the agreement to create an ad hoc committee to examine questions concerning the implementation of national reconciliation and the setting up of a quadripartite interim authority under the leadership of Prince Sihanouk, with responsibility for organising internationally supervised free elections within a reasonable period.
  I draw the attention of the House to the crucial fact that the Foreign Ministers of all the participating nations, including Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union, as well as the United States and the ASEAN countries, agreed that the interim authority should be quadripartite—that is to say that it should include all four factions, including representatives of the Khmer Rouge and the former Khmer Rouge who constitute the Heng Samrin regime.
  The basis for that general agreement—this is the heart of the Opposition's disagreement with our policy, although it is not an illogical policy and it is certainly not a dishonourable policy—was the judgment that, if a protracted civil war is to be avoided and if the settlement is to be durable, it would be better to include all the factions in the interim authority, rather than exclude the Khmer Rouge and risk its return to guerrilla warfare in the jungle.
  Mr. Kaufman: If the Government want to avoid a protracted civil war in Cambodia, why are they providing special forces training to one of the participants in that war?
  Mr. Waldegrave: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I will give no answer—any more than my right hon. Friends did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the Foreign Secretary, made it clear that the composition of the transitional arrangements was primarily a matter for the Cambodian leader to decide.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been asked a question of fact. Does he not have an obligation to the House to answer a question of fact?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is not a matter over which I have any authority. Ministers and hon. Members must be responsible for their own statements and speeches.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about taxpayers' money. Surely the Minister cannot deny that that money is being used to fund the murderous Pol Pot.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell us whether the Minister's statement will preclude hon. Members from tabling further questions on the matter? Am I right in thinking that it will not preclude the Minister's appearing in front of the relevant Select Committee to answer—or not answer—similar questions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have responsibility for the conduct of Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman asked about questions. Nothing that is said in a debate of itself precludes the tabling of questions, although other criteria may well influence it.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made it clear that this is not a point of order for me. I remind the House that there are a number of hon. Members waiting to take part in this brief debate.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister said that he could not answer, but he answered a similar question on Zimbabwe. Will he withdraw his remarks and say not, "I cannot answer," but, "I refuse to answer"?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman inadvertently makes my point for me, because there have been no special forces ever involved in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Kaufman: So what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that there are special forces involved. If there were not special forces involved, he would be able to answer the question about military training.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman, with his slightly schoolboyish debating skills, tries to make a bogus point. The military training for the Zimbabwe army is not special forces training. We do plenty of open military training for friendly countries around the world. We have never ever commented on the role of the special forces
  50
  —either to say yes or to say no—and that remains the position just as it has been the position of Labour Governments.
  My right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary made it clear that the composition of the transitional arrangements was primarily a matter for the Cambodian leaders to decide. But, he added, the international community
  "has a duty to ensure that Cambodia is never again subjected to the degradation of the Pol Pot era. Through their action between 1975 and 1978, the Khmer Rouge must surely have forfeited any right to regain power."
  The opening ministerial conference also agreed to send a United Nations fact finding team to establish whether a United Nations monitoring force could be deployed. It reported that this should be feasible, thus demonstrating that United Nations auspices could be established for a settlement, even though this issue too proved a major obstacle to agreement.
  It is a source of profound regret that, despite these hopeful beginnings, one month later, when the second ministerial conference reconvened, the four Cambodian factions were further apart than they had been at the beginning. In particular, the Phnom Penh regime was not prepared to share power with the external Cambodian resistance in the transitional period before elections. Its position had hardened.
  The attempt at national reconciliation therefore foundered and a return to the battlefield became inevitable. It seemed that, once Vietnam decided that a partial solution was not on—that is to say, international credit for troop withdrawal but no more—it lost interest in the proceedings. Those countries directly concerned must bear a heavy responsibility for the failure, and I have in mind the leaderships in Phnom Penh and Hanoi as well as in Peking. It is their consciences which should be under the spotlight; they are the centrally involved countries.
  Agreement could have been possible if all concerned had shown the necessary flexibility. Up to the last moment, the French and Indonesian co-chairmen worked tirelessly for a political breakthrough. But it never came.
  Even now, we refuse to renounce the hope that it will be possible to reconvene the Paris conference where so much useful work was done. We stand ready to play our part, for example, by participating in realistic international guarantees, if and when the conference is able to resume. It would, we are convinced, be a mistake at this juncture to abandon hope of a comprehensive and durable settlement, which we firmly believe to be the best way of keeping out the Khmer Rouge. That is why we continue to support that objective, as set out in the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the situation in Cambodia, which we shall co-sponsor.
  Vietnam announced the final withdrawal of its forces from Cambodia on 26 September. Despite the absence of international verification, as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on 8 November, we accept that their combat units have been withdrawn, and we have reviewed the implementation of our objectives in light of these events.
  I remind the House what my right hon. Friend said because in large measure it anticipates the Opposition motion over the United Nations and over humanitarian aid. He announced that we shall build up our humanitarian aid programme. We shall continue to provide substantial help to the many thousands of

  51
  Cambodians living in camps along the Thai-Cambodia border who have been made homeless by the years of fighting. We stipulate that none of our aid should reach the Khmer Rouge.
  We shall now increase the humanitarian aid that we give inside Cambodia, while continuing to channel aid through non-governmental organisations and organisations such as UNICEF, and not direct to the Phnom Penh regime. As part of the policy, we propose to offer now a further contribution of £250,000 to UNICEF for humanitarian projects inside Cambodia. Arrangements will be made for a member of the British embassy in Bangkok to visit Phnom Penh soon to report on the situation at first hand. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the heads of the non-governmental organisations tomorrow to discuss details. As I have already said, we have taken action to adapt our stance at the United Nations.
  I should like to say a word about our policy towards Vietnam, which bears a heavy responsibility for the Cambodian tragedy. As I explained at the beginning, in 1979 the decision to cut off British aid was related to Vietnam's policies on human rights, the exodus of boat people and the Cambodian invasion.
  In recognition of Vietnam's role, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in Paris that
  "we look to the Vietnamese Government to live up to its wider responsibilities—towards Cambodia, towards its neighbours and towards its own people. Only in these new circumstances is my Government prepared to consider contributing to programmes of assistance to help Vietnam."
  The withdrawal of Vietnamese combat units from Cambodia is an important and welcome step. In the context of a comprehensive settlement, it could indeed be a decisive step towards Vietnam's international rehabilitation. But for that we need a negotiated settlement, not a trial of strength on the battlefield.
  We also accept that the human rights situation in Vietnam has improved, despite the cold-war rhetoric of the seventh party plenum, with its outdated references to "capitalist encirclement". It is surely evidence of Vietnam's improved performance in that area that the screening of boat people in Hong Kong reveals that the vast bulk are not fleeing persecution, but simply seeking a better economic life. In one sense, that is encouraging.
  But we still look to Vietnam to state clearly and unequivocally that it is prepared to accept back in safety and dignity all those who are screened out, in accordance with the responsibilities of states towards their own people. We welcome Vietnam's co-operation over the return of volunteers, 500 of whom have now gone back.
  We will go on working with our friends and partners for a sovereign and independent Cambodia whose people are free to decide their own future. That remains the overriding priority. We have never given, and will never give, support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.
  There are new diplomatic ideas coming forward, for resuming the Paris conference, for a step-by-step approach, as proposed by the Thai Prime Minister, for an interim United Nations authority, as suggested by Congressman Solarz. We are considering these carefully, in the context of the forthcoming United Nations general asembly debate and its aftermath. A return to the negotiating table is becoming increasingly urgent.
  52
  We wish to see peace and stability restored to Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement which will create the conditions in which the Cambodian people can elect a Government of their choice, free from the fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, foreign occupation or civil war. In consultation with our friends and allies, notably the ASEAN group of countries, we will continue to work to this end.
  I do not believe that the Cambodian people would willingly choose either the murderous Khmer Rouge or the ex-Khmer Rouge which constitute the present regime in Phnom-Penh. What we need are free and fair elections to decide. Our diplomacy will be directed towards bringing them about.
  5.2 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: This afternoon, the Minister appeared to be a decent, fair-minded man who was landed with an awful brief. It may well be, as his historical chronology showed, that there is some continuity between this Government and the Labour Government of the 1970s, but none of his comments were any more relevant than that. I was saddened as I listened to him plough grimly through his speech, and I suspect that he was a bit sad himself—not least when he was struggling with questions about military training which were obviously right on the button. It must have been a very bad day for the Minister.
  This is a most appropriate time to have this debate. We are debating the subject not just because of the situation in Cambodia, but because of the hard work of Oxfam, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid and because of John Pilger's television programme which had a tremendous effect on so many people and resulted in a remarkable number of people writing to hon. Members and to the Foreign Office.
  I commend the Labour party for having this debate today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said during business questions last Thursday, we are very much at one with the Labour party on this issue. I commend the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his speech.
  As the right hon. Member for Gorton said very clearly, there is a real and terrible risk that the Khmer Rouge could return to power. Those with expert, first-hand knowledge of Cambodia have warned of that for well over a year. For some reason that I do not understand, from the very start the Government and the Foreign Office have been unwilling to respond. There is some weird, deeply misguided, chess game of politics going on.
  In that excellent book on Cambodia, "Punishing the Poor" by Eva Myslievisc, there is a startling quote from a member of the British embassy:
  "Let's be realistic, it's only 6 million people."
  That attitude is quite unacceptable to the people of this country. However, it seems to be the attitude that the Government are taking.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that we cannot really understand the present situation without looking back to the Khmer Rouge's tyranny between 1976 and 1980. However, we must consider that. As we remember the fallen of two world wars, we must also accept that the Khmer Rouge were far more brutal and murderous than Hitler. We must consider the terror and damage in the killing fields among a population not much bigger than that of Greater London. One million people

  53
  were executed or were killed in other ways. There were 450 doctors in 1975, but only 45 remained in 1979. Schools, hospitals and the legal system were abolished. There was an extraordinary, savage madness. The idea that that should be allowed to return is appalling.
  Presumably Conservative Members will support the Government if there is a Division. However, they must recall that the Khmer Rouge regime was brought to an end only through Vietnamese intervention. That is a fact. No hon. Member could put his hand on his heart and say that the Vietnamese were wrong to intervene and topple such a regime. In a rather extraordinary passage towards the end of his speech, the Minister said that somehow or other the Vietnamese had a heavy responsibility for Cambodia. For God's sake—hey stopped the regime. That is the crucial point.
  Mr. MullinIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia took place the very week that Tanzania invaded Uganda, with western support, to put an end to the Idi Amin regime? Quite different things were said about that.
  Sir Russell JohnstonI had forgotten that, but the hon. Gentleman's point is fair and apposite.
  We must surely accept that ousting Pol Pot was justified. What possible justification is there for the continuing isolation of what is the de facto Government of Cambodia in Phnom Penh? Despite the long passage in the Minister's speech about that, in any other country we would by now have accepted reality and sent ambassadors. In response to questions, we would have said that of course that does not mean that we approve of the regime, but it is in control and that has always been our policy. I have heard that policy reiterated many times when hon. Members have asked for ambassadors to be withdrawn because they did not like a regime. The answer is always that the regime is in control and the Government do not express a view for or against it.
  The only reason for non-recognition was the continuing presence of Vietnamese troops. The argument was that the regime was not the de facto Government because the Vietnamese were in control. That argument has disappeared: the rug has been pulled out from under it. The Government must change their position. It is extraordinary that on Wednesday we shall be prepared to continue to support the United Nations recommendation of that gentleman from the Khmer Rouge.
  Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that on Wednesday we shall debate the recognition of the representative of democratic Kampuchea. That is not on the agenda for Wednesday. There is a substantive resolution on what attitude or action the United Nations should take.
  Sir Russell Johnston: On Wednesday the Government will have the right to object to the credentials of the Khmer Rouge representative, and that can change their position. They can do that if they have the political will to do so. That point was also made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and it is crucial if the House is to influence what the Government do at the United Nations.
  The recent so-called Paris peace conference did not succeed because the West made the profound error of pushing to have the Khmer Rouge accepted as part of an interim Government. That is unacceptable to the
  54
  remainder of Cambodians. I do not understand the Government's position and all the stuff about moderate Khmer Rouge participation. Who are the moderates and where are they? It is incredible nonsense and should be recognised as such. Lord Brabazon of Tara said that he did not know the names. The Minister and the Foreign Office have had time to produce the names of all those moderates.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point about the moderate——
  Sir Russell Johnston: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Lady will calm herself.
  Mrs. Mahon: It is an emotive issue.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I will give way in a moment. I was about to finish my sentence.
  If the Minister knows any moderate Khmer Rouge, hon. Members would be interested to hear of them. I certainly do not know any and those who work for Oxfam and other agencies in Cambodia do not know any, either.
  Mrs. Mahon: I did not realise that I was being excitable. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. About 10 days ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking who were the reasonable members of the Khmer Rouge. I have had a holding letter but no reply to date.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps the Minister for Overseas Development will comment on that.
  To put it bluntly, the Paris conference failed because of the West's insistence of Khmer Rouge participation. I respect the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is a fair-minded and reasonable man. If the Government are serious about this matter, the best way forward is to establish links with the existing Phnom Penh Government and support a negotiated peace settlement based on free elections in which the Khmer Rouge play no part—no part whatever. The Khmer Rouge are not interested in free elections or fairness. Such an outcome could—I do not say will—lead to a more pluralist and neutral Cambodia. If the Government continue with their present policy, they may one day need to explain why the Khmer Rouge have again taken power by force.
  5.14 pm
  Sir Peter Blaker: I lived in Cambodia for two years, so I speak against the Khmer Rouge with as much feeling as any other hon. Member. I view with as much horror as any other hon. Member the possibility of the Khmer Rouge's return to greater influence. I speak also with a greater feel for the country and certainly a greater knowledge of its history than some hon. Members have.
  During the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) I questioned how much of the recent history of Cambodia he was familiar with. I regret that, once again, the right hon. Gentleman's paranoia about the United States seemed to dominate his speech. Conservative Members are familiar with Labour Members' paranoia about the United States. It often causes them to make foreign policy misjudgments. It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention a group of countries that have had a much greater influence on the formation of this country's policy. I refer to ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations,

  55
  our European allies, our NATO allies and many other countries at the United Nations which agree with us. There are 74 United Nations countries, in addition to ourselves, sponsoring the resolution to be debated on Wednesday.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not mention ASEAN at all. If an Opposition spokesman makes a major speech on this subject and does not mention ASEAN, he obviously does not know what he is talking about. That is patently obvious to anybody who knows the history of Cambodia or south-east Asia over the past 10 years. That is a fundamental condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The thought crossed my mind that the right hon. Gentleman might regard this issue simply as a convenient bandwagon on which to jump.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should recognise Hun Sen. He overlooked the fact that we do not now recognise any Governments. By implication the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), too, suggested that we should recognise the Hun Sen Government. He said that if such a situation had existed for 10 years in any other country we would have recognised the Government in control. I do not believe that we would have recognised a Government who had been put into power by force or by war and had never been exposed to a free election. That is not our tradition.
  My hon. Friend the Minister reminded us that the Conservative Government withdrew recognition from the Khmer Rouge in the days when we did recognise Governments or withdrew recognition from Governments, a practice which, as he explained, was changed in 1980.
  The previous Labour Government declared that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was unjustified. Border incidents provoked by the Khmer Rouge have been mentioned. No doubt they occurred, but they did not justify the Vietnamese action. I agree with what the Labour Government said at the time. It certainly did not justify an occupation which lasted 11 years, without an opportunity for the Cambodian people to express their wishes.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I cannot speak for the right hon. Gentleman, but when he referred to "border incidents" and to "troubles", I remind him that we are talking about 20,000 people dead.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I do not know whether there were 20,000 dead, but the Pol Pot regime certainly caused trouble on the border. What I have just said—perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen—is that not only did the Vietnamese occupy the whole of Cambodia in an all-out war which was launched on, as I recall it, Christmas day 1978, but they stayed for 11 years. If it was a punitive expedition and if there was no intention of establishing a Vietnamese influence, having established their point by punishing the Pol Pot regime, why did not the Vietnamese give the people of Cambodia an opportunity to show how they wished to be governed?
  Mr. Heffer: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an article by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who stated:
  56
  "Any visitor to that country would tell you that whatever the natural dislike of the Cambodian people for their aggressive neighbours, the vast majority is far more horrified by the prospect of a return to power of the Khmer Rouge."
  Does that mean nothing to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir Peter Blaker rose——
  Mr. Heffer: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, I must point out that the Labour Government were wrong in what they said about the Vietnamese. Does what has happened, with the stopping of more than 2 million people—because 2 million people were killed—mean nothing at all to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir Peter Blaker: I can only assume that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was not listening to the early part of my speech, because I started by saying that I feel the same abhorrence for what has happened as any hon. Member. For heaven's sake, I lived in Cambodia for two years—which I do not think that any other hon. Member has done—so I know about the Cambodian people and how agreeable they naturally are. I lived in that country with great pleasure for two years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should first take care to have listened to the earlier part of the speech in which he wishes to intervene.
  I suspect that one reason why the Opposition have chosen this debate is that we have recently seen on television another example of what I describe as "Pilgerisation"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I know something of the facts of Cambodia——
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: So does he.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I know Cambodia from further back—for a longer period—than Mr. Pilger. To Pilgerise is to distort the real picture by a mixture of 50 per cent. fact, 25 per cent. omission of facts, and 25 per cent. innuendo. If anybody really believes that the true and dispassionate picture of Cambodia is that presented by Mr. Pilger's programmes, that person is sadly misled.
  Mr. Heffer: Did Heath Pilgerise as well?
  Sir Peter Blaker: Before coming to what I believe should be done, I want to put three points right. First—I do not believe that this has been mentioned so far—Vietnam is the hereditary enemy of Cambodia. Their relationship is as acrimonious historically as the relationship between any two countries of which one cares to think. The two countries are racially and culturally different. They are also different in religion and language. They have almost nothing in common. Their relationship is as acrimonious as that between India and Pakistan; Iran and Iraq; the Hutu and the Tuts; Wanda and Burundi; the Islamic people of Sudan and the Christian people of Sudan; the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Although that is the sort of relationship about which we are talking, no one has mentioned that yet. That is the context in which one has to put the 11 years of Vietnamese occupation. It is not occupation by a friendly neighbour, it is occupation by the ancestral enemy.
  Mr. Lester: While accepting that that is the historical position, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that for the people of Cambodia their relationship with Vietnam is considerably better than their relationship with the Pol Pot regime?
  Sir Peter Blaker: There seems to be some impression that I am defending the Pol Pot regime—
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. George Galloway: The hon. Gentleman should read his speech in Hansard in the morning.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I am assuming that hon. Members are intent not simply on scoring points, but on understanding the position. I accept that after Christmas day 1978, when Vietnam invaded and destroyed the Pol Pot regime, the position for most—nearly all—Cambodians was better than under the Pol Pot regime. I entirely support that proposition. I have never denied it. I am saying, first, that the Vietnamese invasion was condemned at the time by the Labour Government——
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: We were wrong.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I accept that many Opposition Members think that what the Labour Government did was wrong. They think that lots of things that the Labour Government did in office were wrong. It is an entertaining experience to watch them——
  Mr. Heffer: Has the Prime Minister never made any mistakes?
  Sir Peter Blaker: It was not necessary for Vietnam to remain in occupation of Cambodia for 11 years with large forces and, knowing the relationship between the two countries, to give the people of Cambodia——
  Mr. Heffer rose——
  Sir Peter Blaker: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
  Knowing the ancestral ambitions of Vietnam, which, during the entire 19th century, was gradually nibbling away at Cambodian territory—as Thailand was from the other side—it should have been Vietnamese policy, if Vietnam was genuinely peace-loving and had the interests of the Cambodian people at heart, to give them the opportunity of freely deciding by what Government they should be ruled.
  Mr. Wareing: Surely the events of the past few weeks justify the period of that occupation by the Vietnamese, because, when the Vietnamese withdrew, the Khmer Rouge invaded. Indeed, they have already occupied the town of Pailin—there are reports of 17,000 people killed in that part of the world—and are now approaching Battambang, which is the second largest town in Cambodia. Unless there is some international action, there will be a return of Pol Pot, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be justifying.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I can only assume that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is not listening to my speech either. I wish that Opposition Members would listen to what I am actually saying as opposed to what they think I am saying or what they would like me to be saying. That is not what I was saying.
  Mr. Wareing: I have been there.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I will come—if I am allowed to—to some proposals about what should be done. Meanwhile, I repeat that Britain has not been alone in the policy that it has followed during the past 11 years.
  My second point is that, after the Vietnamese invasion we were urged, as were our friends and allies in Europe and the United States, by the countries of ASEAN, next door to Vietnam and Cambodia, to adopt the policy to which we eventually agreed—that is, to reject the credentials of the Vietnamese-installed regime at the United Nations and to insist that Vietnam should withdraw from Cambodia. That urging was not from the United States, it was from the people of ASEAN: the south-east Asian nations, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and subsequently Brunei. They were extremely nervous about Vietnam which, after all, only a few years earlier had won the Vietnam war in which North Vietnam was the aggressor. The Vietnamese had by far the largest army in that part of the world—an extremely powerful army. There would have been great alarm in ASEAN if we had adopted any other course. Indeed, that course was adopted by most of the free world.
  To assume that the United States policy is one of revenge against Vietnam and to assume that, along with the other 74 countries at the United Nations which share our view, we have tamely followed the wishes of the United States, is wholly to mislead oneself. The policy was motivated by a refusal to recognise aggression, and it was urged on us and other like-minded countries especially by the friendly countries of south-east Asia. Our action had the successful effect of stabilising south-east Asia during a dangerous time.
  My third point relates to Prince Sihanouk. When I was in Cambodia in the 1950s, Prince Sihanouk, who had been king, but abdicated because he wanted to become Prime Minister, ran for election. I observed the election of 1955 on behalf of the British Government and it was the first election to be conducted after independence was declared in 1954. In the judgment of all the observers, including not only our embassy of which I was a member, but the international control commission, consisting of Poland, Canada, and India, that election was fair. Sihanouk emerged as the victor with an enormous margin. It is no exaggeration to say that the people of Cambodia regarded him as something close to God.
  Since the 1955 election, things have changed. Sihanouk has frequently made statements that have been regarded, understandably, as eccentric. It is my guess, however, that if a free election were conducted again, any party led by Sihanouk would win with a substantial majority. The way to find out would be to arrange for a properly conducted, internationally supervised, free election. The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton was extremely thin regarding his own proposals.
  Sihanouk is no friend of the Khmer Rouge. I believe that five of his children and many of his grandchildren were killed by the Khmer Rouge, and he was imprisoned by it. He has no reason to love the Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk's forces, which, unfortunately, are less numerous than the forces of the Khmer Rouge, are separate from them. The so-called coalition between the Khmer Rouge, Sihanouk and Son San does not represent one army controlled by the Khmer Rouge—there are three armies fighting in three locations. If Sihanouk and Son San believe that it would be right to have an interim

  59
  Government to prepare for elections, in which part of the Khmer Rouge would be included, Opposition Members should attach importance to that view.
  I also believe that it would be legitimate for the British Government, and for other Governments who want Cambodia restored to freedom, to support Sihanouk. Among other things, that support would strengthen him against the Khmer Rouge.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the coalition is dominated diplomatically, politically, militarily, and legally by the Khmer Rouge? That is the problem with recognising that coalition—the dominant partner is the Khmer Rouge.
  Sir Peter Blaker: Certainly the forces of the Khmer Rouge represent the largest power militarily, but I do not accept that it dominates the coalition.
  One of the problems is China. The Chinese Government have been the principal supporter of the Khmer Rouge. A few months ago there were signs that China was prepared to change that policy. Chinese spokesmen have told me that the Khmer Rouge have made blunders—a strong statement coming from the Chinese. I do not know the present Chinese posture nor whether it has changed since the events of 4 June. When my right hon. Friend replies to this debate, I would be interested to know whether there is any information about the current Chinese attitude. One of the keys to resolving this extremely difficult problem would be for China to stop helping the Khmer Rouge.
  What should be our course of action? We are right to aim for a comprehensive settlement, and that was something that the recent Paris conference hoped to achieve. That settlement should involve United Nations verification that the Vietnamese forces have withdrawn. An interim Government should be established to prepare for the elections. It is not satisfactory for the Hun Sen Government alone to prepare those elections as I do not believe that the rest of the world would have confidence in their freedom. The elections should be supervised by the United Nations. When the comprehensive settlement has been achieved, the incoming Government should receive large-scale economic assistance from all aid donors.
  We cannot tell who would win such an election as the situation has changed enormously in the past 15 years. Perhaps the scepticism displayed by Opposition Members towards Sihanouk is justified—I do not know. The only way to find out is to hold such an election. I doubt very much, however, that the victor would be Hun Sen.
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) I do not believe that it is sufficiently established that Hun Sen is the acceptable Head of Government for the Cambodian people. There are strong suggestions that all the Vietnamese forces have left, but we cannot assume that that is correct. That withdrawal requires verification, especially as the Chinese have said that they will withdraw support from the Khmer Rouge once they are satisfied that the Vietnamese forces have left.
  The Labour party has initiated this debate with inadequate understanding of the history of Cambodia or of the factors that influenced our Government, in common with 74 other Governments, to adopt their present policy.
  60
  That policy is right, but I also believe that the Government have been right recently to shift it in a more positive direction. No doubt we shall continue to assess what the next step should be. We should work as hard as we can for the resumption of a comprehensive conference leading towards a comprehensive settlement.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a brief debate and obviously a number of hon. Members want to take part. I appeal for speeches shorter than those we have had so far.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be brief, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate. I believe that my hon. Friends' contributions will represent a much more accurate reflection of the situation in south-east Asia than that presented by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). It is relevant that the only date he could mention when he had been in the area was in the mid-1950s. His speech reminded me of someone harking back to those old colonial days of the 1950s. I hope that some of my hon. Friends, who have had much more up-to-date experience than the right hon. Gentleman, can contribute to the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South attacked the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The right hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend had omitted to mention a number of things. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will rectify that when she replies.
  What my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was trying to make clear, not only on behalf of the Labour Party, but on behalf of the other opposition parties, and even some Conservative Members, was the absolute abhorrence among our people of the way in which the British Government are deliberately distorting our position in the United Nations and other world bodies as it relates to Cambodia. I am sure that, when we read the speeches in Hansard, even the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South will have cause to regret some of the things he said, especially when he reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
  Some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments were incredible. He said that, when the Vietnamese forces invaded Kampuchea, as it was then known, they destroyed Pol Pot. That is nonsense, and I hope that it is the last piece of nonsense we hear in the debate. They managed to drag Pol Pot from Kampuchea across the border into Thailand, where the regime was sustained by the same forces who are trying to justify that sustenance today in the Chamber. From the camps, the Pol Pot regime continued a policy of genocide against the Cambodians, both in the camps and in Cambodia by incursions across the Thai border.
  We should remind ourselves that it was the deliberate intention of the Pol Pot regime to remove the intellectuals from the infrastructure of Kampuchea. That caused the problems, which meant that the Vietnamese had to stay in that country until the Cambodians thought it was important for them to withdraw. By the policy of genocide, the regine removed a whole stratum of doctors, academics and other educated and intelligent professionals who would have been required to rebuild Cambodia. The

  61
  removal of that stratum resulted in the problems with which Cambodia is still struggling. The Government have neither given nor offered aid to Cambodia that would make up for the removal of that stratum, and it is not as if we do not have the facilities or the people power to have given that type of support.
  It is important that we remind ourselves of the comments made by the aid organisations in Cambodia. Frank Judd, the director of Oxfam, described the British Government's policy as "naive". At the end of the debate, the House will share that view. It is naive for the British Government to suppose that military training and aid given to the camps will not help the Khmer Rouge. He compares the British Government's policy of not giving aid inside Cambodia to that of the British people who are donating generously and willingly to the aid organisations working in that country.
  On Friday, Mr. Derek Lietch, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), stood in Dundee high street and within two hours had gathered 150 signatures on a petition which simply said that there should be an end to British Government support for the Khmer forces in Cambodia. If people were to go on to the streets outside the House or in any constituency, they would have no difficulty in achieving more than 150 signatures opposing the British Government's present proposals for Cambodia.
  If the Minister has a chance to talk to her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary before she replies to the debate, she might be able to tell me what response he intends to send to the philosophy department at Dundee university. On 7 November, a letter signed by the entire department was sent to the right hon. Gentleman making clear its concern for the plight of the civilian population in Cambodia and its horror and incredulity that we should co-sponsor a resolution in the United Nations that would ultimately leave the Khmer Rouge with some form of control in Cambodia.
  During this short debate, it would be wrong not to speak of some of the other problems that need to be dealt with if there is to be a realistic end to the problems faced by the Cambodian people and the whole of the south-east peninsula. We should address ourselves not only to Cambodia but to Vietnam.
  There has been reference to the Paris peace conferences. The Paris peace conference that failed in August this year was important for the forces in Cambodia. In the peace talks of 1973, the United States Government agreed to pay $3·2 billion to the Vietnamese people for the war of attrition that was launched against them. Not one cent of that money has been paid to a country that suffered considerable war damage and experienced the first large-scale use of herbicidal warfare. Over 41 million lb of agent orange were dropped on the Vietnamese people between 1961 and 1971. The damage can still be seen among the Vietnamese people and in the defoliation.
  The United States and British Governments have made no effort to help the Vietnamese people, despite the fact that the Vietnamese have said that they are prepared to discuss—particularly with the United States Government—ways in which they could be involved in the rebuilding of Vietnam. Only with the economic aid that is dearly required for Vietnam and Cambodia will there be an end to the problems in that area.
  Many Opposition Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I am sure that, if they catch your eye, Mr.
  62
  Deputy Speaker, we shall hear their experiences of visits to Cambodia and Vietnam. They will be able to tell the House about the determination of the Cambodian and Vietnamese people to live peacefully with their neighbours, if they are allowed. They will not be able to live in peace if we are party to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge being allowed back into Cambodia.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who said that this is not a matter of grave urgency. It is a matter of international concern and of profound public concern in this and other countries. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, I initiated an Adjournment debate on 1 November. In that debate I pressed for a major debate on this part of the world and I welcome the fact that the Opposition have provided that opportunity.
  It is now time for statesmanship of high order. The House should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who has had a profound interest in the subject for many years. Those of us who have followed the matter realise that the position is changing fast. I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's reply to me in his statement. However, we need to consider the matter in reverse order to the way that he put it. The first and most critical matter is the United Nations debate on the resolution. Within its five pages, the changes are minimal and insufficient to fulfil the statement to me that it would reflect the changing position.
  I remain concerned that our attitude is one of high risk: our ambivalence over our support for Prince Sihanouk and the Cambodian people leaves open the risk that the Khmer Rouge military could return as a result of the civil war. I suspect that, within the American Administration, and—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said—the Association of the South-East Asian Nations, there are many different views. One has only to witness what the Thai Prime Minister is trying to do to recognise that. I suspect that the same applies to our European partners. We should look carefully at our policies and statements at all times.
  I shall ask a straightforward question about this resolution of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench: what would our policy be if Prince Sihanouk resigned tomorrow? He has resigned more than once from different posts. What would our policy be if we built it entirely on Prince Sihanouk? I recognise the worries and tribulations which he has suffered. I have read his book, and it would be a good thing if others read it. His book was written in French and has not been translated into English. I understand the man, what he feels about the Khmer Rouge and the interim period in which he was, and I believe remains, a puppet.
  Prince Sihanouk is not the vehicle for a settlement in Kampuchea. He is a creature of China and less independent than Hun Sen, who has often been accused of being a creature of the Vietnamese. However, I know, because I have discussed with Hun Sen, the 100 hours of negotiation which he had with Prince Sihanouk in an effort to bring him back into the Government and reconcile him with the Kampuchean people.
  Prince Sihanouk demanded various things, such as a new flag, a return to calling the nation Cambodia instead

  63
  of Kampuchea, and a new national anthem. Hun Sen returned to his assembly and, however much it is criticised, he has obtained a new flag which is more attractive than the old one, and the country is now being called Cambodia. The only thing with which he had trouble was the national anthem, because the national assembly in Phnom Penh did not like its slowness and wanted something brighter. That is an example of how things have been done to assist reconciliation, yet each time Prince Sihanouk goes back to Peking, he returns to his original formula involving the Khmer Rouge.
  Much of the propaganda, which is still about and which poisoned the Paris conference, is reflected in a letter which Prince Sihanouk wrote to The New York Times on 13 March, following an article by Elizabeth Becker:
  "It is most regrettable that Ms. Becker confuses the traitor regime of Cambodia that serves only the interests of the Vietnamese Communist colonialists with that of the real Cambodia. The People's Republic of Kampuchea of Hun Sen is not Cambodia; it is merely a creation, and a creature of the expansionist and colonialist Vietnam Communist regime."
  Are those the words of settlement? I think not.
  Those of us who have had the good fortune to travel to Cambodia twice relatively recently—in 1987 and only a few weeks ago—know that this is not an accurate picture of Hun Sen, Vietnam or the scene within Cambodia. I suspect that the United Kingdom Government and others have a lack of balance in this matter, because they have no appreciation of the reality of what is happening within Cambodia.
  Earlier this year, The Bangkok Post of Wednesday 17 May said:
  "Khmer resistance leader Prince Norodom Sihanouk has said Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping strongly warned him against breaking his alliance with the Khmer Rouge … The Bangkok-based diplomats told AFP Prince Sihanouk had told them Deng had threatened to 'fight' him if he 'expelled the Khmer Rouge'."
  Bearing in mind the fact that we have a civil war and a coalition of convenience, my horror is that there will be not just three armies against Hun Sen, but armies against one another: the Khmer Rouge against the Sihanoukists—with whom they have been in conflict in the past. Therefore, it is essential that we have a far better understanding of the problem.
  I understand the argument of Prince Sihanouk and the coalition, that, as we have this army, the only way to deal with it is to involve it in the coalition or the interim Government, which is what we are really talking about. I fear that philosophy, because it supports Mao's theory that power grows from the barrel of a gun. That is a dangerous argument to accept.
  The only reason why the Khmer Rouge army has not been defeated is because it has had refuge in Thailand. If the Vietnamese had gone after it in Thailand, all hell would have been let loose. It has been sustained, in secret, in China and in Thailand. The only way in which genuinely to judge its military effectiveness would be if the Thais were allowed to pursue the policy which they now seek.
  I do not know whether there is any truth in the notion of Sihanoukists being trained. In his policy to the American Administration, Steve Solarz suggested that Prince Sihanouk and his forces should be supplied with lethal aid to give them greater bargaining power in Paris. As I understand it, Steve Solarz changed his mind following the events at Paris, and that aid was not
  64
  provided. I suspect that, if we had done any training with Sihanouk forces, it would be more designed to deal with the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and to suggest that there was a more equal force between the Khmer Rouge and the Sihanoukists, rather than to train the Sihanoukists to fight the Vietnamese. That is why I constantly refer to the coalition as one of convenience.
  We cannot impose, as we tried in Paris, perhaps through diplomatic skills, a quadripartite interim Government. There are three options which we should pursue more deliberately. The first is the Jakarta formula which was negotiated between Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk. That required that there should be external Khmers, represented by Prince Sihanouk and his coalition Government—within which there could be members of the Khmer Rouge, although members could not stand in their own right. The most politically unacceptable factor in Cambodia, and the one which, Hun Sen says, would stop him delivering an interim Government, would be if that Government included the Khmer Rouge with its armies intact.
  We could pursue this Jakarta formula, which was nogotiated and then reneged upon, with the external and internal Khmers in an interim Government for a short period to organise the elections which we all seek. We all—including the internal Government—want to find the quickest way to organise elections which are eligible, free and fair, to enable the Cambodian people to choose their own future Government.
  The second option is to back the Prime Minister Chatichai of Thailand in his small steps policy, which is well documented in The Washington Post of 11 November, in which the Thais urge a shift in United States policy and the Prime Minister wants President Bush to be more conciliatory to Hanoi. The Prime Minister says that we should abandon the elusive goal of the power-sharing formula and recognise much more the Vietnamese position. We should get the three or four competing factions in an informal manner to proceed towards the goal of a United Nations team visiting the country to reassure everyone of two facts: first, that the Vietnamese have withdrawn, and secondly that—this is one reason why the Paris talks failed—the settlers are no longer there.
  The third option is the Namibia solution, which we all hope and pray has been successful, even as the votes are being counted. In Namibia, the United Nations was able to organise free and fair elections with what was seen to be an illegal regime—the South African regime. The conditions were that the South African military were withdrawn into their barracks and the external military were not allowed to return with guns, although they could return without them. An election was organised, of which we shall all, hopefully, see the results soon.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the question of external military, what is the hon. Gentleman's view of alleged British military training of forces in Cambodia? Does he accept that, when Ministers say that they never discuss these matters, that is belied by the fact that press statements were issued in relation to the SAS training for the South Korea olympics, and in relation to Mazambique, Spain and a Foreign Office statement on the work which the British military are rightly carrying out in Colombia. Therefore, there is no precedent for not making statements to the Commons about the military problems.
  Mr. Lester: I have read the Jane's Defence Weekly articles, which may or may not be true. I do not want to be sidetracked by this issue, but as I read it, the document revealed basic military training to forces under the control of Prince Sihanouk in Thailand, not Cambodia. Whether that happened, I do not know. However, if it did, I suspect that it was more because Prince Sihanouk, in all his representations to western leaders, has constantly complained about the weakness of his military position in relation to Khmer Rouge. I suspect that if that happened, it was more to give him increased political and military power as against the Khmer Rouge within the coalition than to enable him to be successful in any civil war. In any case, I strongly press all sides to end the civil war—that is paramount.
  The resolution to be debated next Wednesday should include a new form of words that would enable the Secretary-General to continue his policy which started in Paris and to initiate a mission to Phnom Penh and Cambodia. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South suggested, that mission should verify the Vietnamese withdrawal and all that should flow from that. It is wrong to move the goalposts as events unfold.
  When the Foreign Affairs Select Committee went to Vietnam way back in 1986, we recommended that our policy should be to encourage the normalisation of relationships with America and with other ASEAN countries as soon as possible after the Vietnamese had left Cambodia. We do not need to verify that they have left, but many Governments will not formally recognise that until it has the UN seal of approval. That should be given quickly, so that normalisation can follow and we can end the embargo on Vietnam, which should be rehabilitated within ASEAN, as it has applied to join. The ASEAN nations must put their thinking caps on and make a proper response to that application.
  The mission should also verify that there are not 1 million Vietnamese settlers. If one studies carefully what happened in Paris and in the ad hoc committee, one discovers that it all fell apart because of the prejudices of the factions.
  The arguments revolved around "genocide" not being allowed to be included in the resolution, and the Vietnamese settlers.
  As I have said before, we all know that genocide took place. Those of us who have been to Cambodia have tried hard to discover the 1 million Vietnamese settlers who are paraded by the Chinese and Sihanouk. The commission could verify that; the commission offered by Hun Sen would include Khmer-speaking external Khmers who can tell the difference between Vietnamese and Khmers, and who speak the language.
  The resolution should also underline the need for the immediate suspension of hostilities and of arms supplies from all sources—whether from China, Russia or America. I hope that the Americans are not sending the lethal aid that they talked about. It is not good for the British Government to continue to be seen to be siding with the coalition to the exclusion of the internal Government. Such a lack of balance cannot lead to the solution that we all seek.
  Many of us have been to the camps on the Thai border. The resolution mentions people being allowed to return freely and safely to their homeland. Most of us who have been to the camps recognise that the people cannot even return freely to the villages around them and certainly not
  66
  those between the camps. The condition in the camps has been well documented—we have had to send a special police force to uphold a form of justice there, to replace the barbarism that prevailed before.
  To suggest that these camps are good advertisements for the coalition Government and for the way in which they treat people is untrue. We do not know much about the camps under Khmer Rouge control, because until recently no one was allowed into them. Although one receives a tremendous welcome when entering the other two camps, one can detect that they are camps for the rest and rehabilitation of the military forces who have been fighting in Cambodia.
  The internal Government's signature on a document allowing these people to return to Cambodia was given to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees long ago, but I suspect that they could not cross the threshold of the country even if they wanted to. In Phnom Penh, we looked carefully at the conditions for the return of the external Khmers and at the work done by the Red Cross with the UNHCR in the form of plans to facilitate the end of the misery of the people in these camps.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to give increased aid to Cambodia. I know that she had a great deal to do with that and with the much more forthcoming attitude of her predecessor—who began pound-for-pound aid to the non-governmental organisations—and that she is using the heads of NGOs to talk about what can be done on a greater scale. I refer, for instance, to the £250,000 which has been promised to UNICEF and which I hope will go to the hospital that we saw on the Pilger film. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I have been there and can vouch for its needs.
  The United Nations Development Programme report which I mentioned in my Adjournment debate is available; it analyses constructively the desperate needs of Cambodia, despite the fact that the UNDP could not go to Phnom Penh. The report draws a conclusion similar to that to which we came when we visited the country: an aid programme on a sufficient scale cannot be started until there is peace, and until there is confidence among those who have to administer it. A return of the people who are capable of interfacing with those who want to give the aid must come first.
  Part of the problem is that the aid programmes, even those from the Soviet Union, have great difficulty finding the necessary intermediaries to transfer the knowledge and aid, thanks to the ravages of Pol Pot and the lack of confidence among many of the people serving in the Administration. It is not enough merely to increase the aid programme—the waterworks are a good example of that. Oxfam has done marvellous work getting the waterworks up to World Health Organisation standards—when the water leaves the waterworks. It then goes into a piping system which is completely destroyed and broken into at every level by people using it instead of wells. Replacing the water system in a city like Phnom Penh is not work for an NGO; it is a matter for a massive infrastructure aid programme.
  The Government have recognised that it is important that someone from Bangkok should visit Phnom Penh to see for himself what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and I have been trying to say since 1987. We are not spokesmen for the Hun Sen Government; I have been around the world enough to be reasonably fair, but I know that the picture in Phnom Penh does not bear out the

  67
  propaganda that we hear from Bangkok. The Government in Phnom Penh have struggled against impossible odds to bring about some rehabilitation. A fundamental change has been wrought between 1987 and a few weeks ago. There is a thriving market economy, in which gold and motor cars can be bought; there are new hotels, but there is still a desperate need for infrastructure.
  Pagodas are being rebuilt and pagoda education is beginning again—hardly the action of a Stalinist-Communist Government. The rehabilitation process is borne out by the UNDP report.
  Hun Sen has been attacked in an underhand way as having been a former member of the Khmer Rouge, but that must be put in context. As he said in his press conference in Phnom Penh, he joined the Khmer nationalist movement with Prince Sihanouk at a time when the Americans backed Lol Non's attempt to take over. Hun Sen sees himself—in this he is supported by the Prime Minister of Thailand—as a nationalist, and that is what he is. Prince Sihanouk was the big fish in that struggle, and Hun Sen was a very small fish, so it is not good enough to cast doubts on his sincerity and on what he has tried to do by linking him with the Khmer Rouge and its terrible activities.
  As we have continually said, Britain can play a role if it sets out to do so. We are the only member of the Security Council which has not been directly involved in the conflict and we chaired the committee which finally settled the Vietnam war. I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister to go to the Foreign Secretary and to all members of her team and press them to pay much more lively attention to what has been said in the House. They should bring about a dramatic change of policy and should do a great deal more to achieve the result that we all seek.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When I saw the answer that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) was given by the Foreign Secretary last week, I thought that it signified some change of mood by the Government, in that they were willing to give some aid to Cambodia. However, when I heard the Chamberlainesque speech by the Minister, my doubts about Government policy returned very rapidly.
  At least the Vietnamese have left Cambodia. In his answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, the Foreign Secretary said as much—that the Government accepted that the Vietnamese had left. However, we have heard speeches from the Minister and from the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) the main tenor of which was how nasty the Vietnamese were to invade Cambodia and get rid of the murderous Pol Pot. When I hear such speeches, I wonder where we are going.
  The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South talked about free elections. How can there be free elections in the middle of a civil war? The danger that many people thought would arise if the Vietnamese withdrew from Cambodia is unfolding before our eyes. There are reports of 17,000 people already killed and of the town of Pailin already occupied by the murderous legions of Pol Pot.
  Sir Peter Blaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  The forces of Pol Pot are now marching on Battambang. It is a regional capital and the second largest city in Cambodia. Poor and desperate as it is, Cambodia depends greatly on its jute production and Battambang has Cambodia's only factory for making the sacks in which the jute is wrapped and sent to market. The factory is financed by Oxfam and there are British people in the town, Oxfam people working on an irrigation scheme. If that town falls, it is widely rumoured that the Khmer Rouge has said that it will go full belt for a military solution.
  How can we talk about free elections and about the Vietnamese at a time when armies similar to those of Hitler in 1940 are sweeping across Cambodia? It can only be a matter of weeks before they reach Phnom Penh and once again impose the foul Pol Pot regime. The people held responsible for that will be those who take no action now and just laugh about the situation, the people who will go to the United Nations next Wednesday and refuse to take any action whatever.
  In August I visited the camps at Khao-I-Dang and Rythisen on the border with Thailand. I pay tribute to the gallant British nurses who are working in the hospital there. They are from Bristol, Gloucester, Manchester and Stockport. Those young girls are doing a marvellous job in that hospital, as I know the hon. Member for Broxtowe and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) have seen for themselves. A Finnish women surgeon working on her own is dealing with all the necessary amputations in an area ravaged by minefields, which from time to time suffers shellfire. A young Frenchman is training the Cambodians to make wheelchairs and artificial limbs from the very poor materials that they have.
  Those people require assistance, and so far no practical assistance has been given by the British Government to Cambodians on either side of the border. However, the silence of the Minister confirms that aid is going to the Khmer Rouge by way of training its allies in weaponry. We know that is true because the Government remain silent about it and silence speaks volumes.
  There are 140,000 refugees in the camps around the Thailand-Cambodia border. Of those refugees, no fewer than 59—35 per cent. are under the age of 24. That means that most of them remember very little about Cambodia. They were very young or not born at all when Pol Pot ravaged their homeland. The site 2 camp of Rythisen has the largest concentration of Cambodians outside Phnom Penh. They are living in a relatively urban community. There should be steady repatriation to Cambodia, because those people need to be trained as farmers, the only occupation that will be open to them. We need an economic development package, not a military training package, to train those young people. The fact that they are predominantly young people reflects what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia, when their elder brothers and older people were killed in the Hitlerite fashion that we know as the hallmark of Pol Pot.
  The Khmer Rouge are undoubtedly being assisted by the Chinese and encouraged by the United States and Britain by the silence and their intervention in attempts to train people to carry weapons into Cambodia. China probably more than any other country was responsible for the collapse of the peace talks in Paris. The Chinese

  69
  Government were the perpetrators of the massacre in Tiananmen square and China's Foreign Minister is quoted in the South China Morning Post as having insisted that any change in Cambodia would mean the end of the existing Government in Phnom Penh and the installation of a coalition Government which must, as far as China is concerned, include the Khmer Rouge.
  There seemed some sign in the Foreign Secretary's reply on Wednesday that the Government will look again at their policy. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South talked about "Pilgerisation", but it is not just that, because on television we saw the actuality of conditions for the people in Cambodia, the life of the people in the camps. British people recognise the truth when they see it; that is why they will put increasing pressure on their Members of Parliament to make the Government change their mind.
  The Government have a golden opportunity on Wednesday to raise the whole issue again in the United Nations General Assembly. I fear that, in a few weeks, we shall be talking about Phnom Penh as if it were Paris after 14 June 1940, when the Nazis occupied it. There is a serious war and a crisis in Cambodia and the legions of Pol Pot are not standing aside and saying, "Let us wait and see if we can have free elections." They are getting on with their murderous job of returning to power. Our Government have an opportunity to speak for what the British people want, which is justice for the people of Cambodia.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I thought that the Minister's contribution was shameful. It seriously damaged his justified reputation as a decent human being. I appreciate that he did not write it, but he should have had the strength to refuse to read out what was clearly written by a civil servant. I trust that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—he is not here at the moment—takes office, there will be a shakeup of the south-east Asia department of the Foreign and Commonwealth office.
  The low point of the Minister's speech was his attempt to provide a history of events in Kampuchea but to omit the fact that the Vietnamese invasion was in response to what the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) called "an incident" on the border. This incident was an attempt by the Khmer Rouge to annexe the western provinces of Vietnam. I know some of the people who were living there at that time, and I know what they saw. This attempt resulted in the butchery of thousands of women and children and similar incidents took place on the border with Thailand.
  Whoever wrote the Minister's speech knows that such events occurred. The Minister does not know that. As he cheerfully admitted in the Adjournment debate the other day, he knows not the slightest thing about this issue, as it is not within his remit. It is fundamental to the dishonesty that ran throughout his speech that he attempted to skip over the history of those events, and did not mention them. I invite the House to contemplate how Her Majesty's Government might respond if a foreign power attempted to annexe the southern counties of England, and in the process butchered thousands of our citizens. I wonder whether we would have described that as "an incident".
  The second low point of the Minister's speech was his refusal to respond to the determined attempts by my right
  70
  hon. Friend the Member for Gorton to get from him the facts about the presence of the SAS on the Thai-Cambodian border. We have been told that that is only a token gesture. Jane's Defence Weekly has said that there are only six or seven of them and that they are training people to put mines on roads and to blow up some of the bridges that Oxfam is helping the people to build. No doubt we have made that token gesture as a result of great pressure from the United States, just as, when the Vietnam war was at its height, we were under great pressure to send British service men there to make the war look respectable. I believe that we did and that the bodies of a number of SAS people are still to be found in the soil of Vietnam, but I shall pass over that.
  Like other hon. Members, I have been to Cambodia. I went for the first time in August 1973 and my experience was a little different from that of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South because I strayed off the cocktail party circuit. At the time, Phnom Penh was surrounded and American B52s were burning the country down village by village. I saw with my own eyes what they were doing. I woke up at night and the whole city was shaking because of the bombs, and the sky was lit up. They were bombing up to the suburbs. That bombing was controlled from the windowless bunker which passed for the American embassy.
  The Americans were caught at it. I remember an American journalist, Sylvanna Foa, accidentally twiddling with the knobs of her portable radio and discovering that the instructions to the pilots of the B52s were coming directly from the American embassy, and could be heard on the radio frequency. That is possibly the only time that diplomats accredited to a country were attempting to burn it down.
  I also vividly remember the American Government's principal problem in this case—their ignorance. The Americans must be mentioned frequently because we were only following on behind them in this as in many other cases. They were amazingly ignorant even then about the events in the country that they were burning down. I remember sitting in that windowless bunker in Phnom Penh in August 1973 and an American first secretary describing to me how the Khmer Rouge did not exist. He developed the theme at some length.
  We have to pinch ourselves to remember that the official policy was that it was a Vietnamese invasion, although a handful of indigenous Khmer might be involved. He told me that Saloth Sar, which is Pol Pot's real name, Hou Youn, Hu Nim and Kieu Samphan, who were the original leaders of the Khmer Rouge, had been murdered by Sihanouk. However, there was a film of Sihanouk visiting what were described as the liberated zones. A film-maker himself, he had filmed himself embracing the three "ghosts" as they were known. That film would have been available, but when I put that to the first secretary, he said, "We think that one of them may be alive, but the other two were actors impersonating the leaders." That was the line 18 months before Phnom Penh fell. The Americans were still denying that the Khmer Rouge existed.
  The irony is that now the people whom they were bombing—the Khmer Rouge—and the Sihanouk supporters are those whom the Americans are helping to get back to power. We have to pinch ourselves to remember—the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to this—that Sihanouk was removed in a military coup run

  71
  by the Americans. The country was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States at that time. The Americans replaced him with the lunatic Marshal Lon Nol—a man who believed that the Communists were strapping rockets to rabbits and sending them into Government installations.
  I remember all that because I was there and I remember going back in 1980 shortly after Pol Pot had left town, courtesy of the Vietnamese. By then, Cambodia was a wholly isolated country. The scenes that one saw have been recorded elsewhere, so I shall not repeat them, but I remember many things. I remember the day, in February 1980, when I flew out of Phnom Penh. I turned on the radio in Bangkok and heard a British Foreign Office Minister speaking at a conference in Geneva about Vietnamese atrocities in Cambodia. When I got back to London, I rang up the man and asked him for chapter and verse of evidence for that statement. He became extremely flustered and said that he had left his notes in Geneva. We can see that the knowledge among Foreign Office Ministers has not improved.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mullin: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Time is short and those on the Front Bench wish to speak. I have waited rather a long time to get this off my chest.
  Mr. Arnold: And I am still waiting.
  Mr. Mullin: I have travelled extensively in those regions and one of the questions that occurs to me is this. Where does the Foreign Office get its information? Does it come from the British embassy in Hanoi? I know many of the people there. They are decent, intelligent good people and I believe that they are reporting back accurately on what they see around them. The information driving the Government to this ludicrous policy is thus unlikely to come from that source. Does it come from the British embassy in Bangkok? The ambassador in Bangkok, Mr. Tonkin, was the former ambassador in Hanoi. I have not met him since he went to Bangkok, but he was a decent intelligent man then and I believe that he and his staff are reporting accurately. So the information does not come from Bangkok.
  The answer is that the information comes on the telex from the United States. One day a telex from Washington will give Mr. Colvin and the other civil servants in the south-east Asia department—the architects of this policy—permission to change the line, and it will change. A Minister will come running down here and read another brief that he does not wholly understand. I am sad to say that we are a satellite state, and this is one of the most humiliating examples of our satellite status. We are the Bulgaria of western Europe, but at a time when glasnost is running through Bulgaria one would like to think that it might also extend to the western satellites of the United States.
  I leave the House with one question. If, as Ministers repeatly assure us, Pol Pot is unpopular—everyone assures us that they have nothing to do with him—and nobody loves him and nobody has anything to do with him, how has he survived in exile over the past decade? Let no one
  72
  say that it is all to do with the Chinese. China has no contiguous border with Cambodia. The weapons that come from China are transported in ships which come from the former American air base at Utapao. They are taken in Thai army trucks to the various Khmer Rouge camps along the Cambodian border. The Thai army, which is a partial subsidiary of the United States, pauses only to take its rake-off from the Chinese weapons.
  Where does the food come from? It comes from the United Nations border relief operation. Tony Jackson of Oxfam has recently returned from one of the Khmer Rouge camps on the border. He saw United Nations food being packed for onward transmission to the interior.
  Where is Pol Pot now? It is no secret that the last recorded sightings of Pol Pot were at the Cardoman mountains inside Cambodia. He has with him a force of about 6,000 men. He and his men are being sustained by United Nations rations. We all contribute food, including the British, American and Japanese Governments. All western countries have contributed to the supplies of food that sustain the Khmer Rouge.
  The factor that has sustained the Khmer Rouge most during the past decade has been diplomatic recognition, and a great deal of arm twisting has taken place to secure that. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South mentioned ASEAN. The ASEAN countries understand that their satellite status is dependent on continuing to toe the line on an extremely unpopular issue.
  When I passed through Bangkok last September I stopped off at the Thai Prime Minister's residence for a few hours. It was made clear to me that Thailand was doing everything possible to get out from under, but it cannot do so because it is afraid of the military. Who runs the Thai military? The United States has more control over it than the Thai Prime Minister, as has been demonstrated by the repeated military coups in Thailand over the past 30 years. The Thais are being leaned upon to keep the line.
  How can Pol Pot and the other Khmer Rouge leaders come and go from Thailand? Do they use a motor boat to land on some abandoned island? No, they come through Don Muang airport, the main international airport in Bangkok. They use the military section. I am told that Pol Pot has twice been hospitalised in Bangkok. I am told also that at one stage he and the other leaders of the Khmer Rouge had a suite in the Erawan hotel. That hotel has since been demolished. Friends of mine in Bangkok have seen Khmer Rouge leaders in the Liberty hotel in Bangkok. Everybody knows what is going on and it is fraudulent for Ministers to pretend otherwise.
  We see a shameful state of affairs. We all realise that we are just bit players, but Britain is being degraded. Decent people of all political persuasions around the world consider that we are being brought into disrespect. I appreciate that whichever Minister replies to the debate will have to read out another brief written by Mr. Colvin and his friends. I hope that when the Ministers return to the Foreign Office they will give him a bollocking and tell him that he should go to the department of folding deck chairs before too long. I trust that their policy on this issue will change.
  6.33 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who challenged the authenticity, veracity and knowledge

  73
  of my right hon. and hon. Friends, was not present to hear some of the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the past 45 minutes.
  We have heard precisely what the British Government's policy is on Cambodia. It is clear that Cambodia is being punished because of a grudge against Vietnam. That has been made clear by those who have spoken from the Government Benches. The continuing punishment and isolation of Cambodia can be seen in its children. Those of us who have been to Cambodia on two occasions, such as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and I, have seen children in the paediatric hospital in Phnom Penh lying in corridors because there are no beds for them. Others are lying in their mothers' laps because there is nowhere else to put them.
  Some of the children we saw were desperately ill. There are children crying in hospital everywhere. Many die from conditions as simple as diarrhoea. They do not get the proper medical care that they should receive. One in five children die of preventable diseases before the age of five. Many die because they drink contaminated water. We have heard described this afternoon what Pol Pot did to Phnom Penh. He went into the city with his Khmer Rouge troops in 1975 and smashed the waterworks.
  Sir Robert Jackson, a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General, wrote:
  "In a disaster operation, three phases are normally distinguished: relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. In the case of Kampuchea, not even the phase of relief has been advanced to what in other humanitarian operations would be regarded as 'just adequate'. At best it can be said that the lives of the people have been preserved after that holocaust, but no more."
  Cambodia is the only country in the world to be denied United Nations development aid, which provides such necessities as a clean water supply, decent sanitation, tractors and irrigation pumps. Cambodia receives practically none of those things because of a 10-year blockade that is led by the United States and China, which is supported by ASEAN and Britain. If the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South would listen, he would understand that that was the mention of ASEAN that he was so anxious to hear.
  Few Governments have tried to help by giving money to non-governmental organisations. Oxfam and other agencies have done a tremendous job in Cambodia. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, Oxfam is supplying and installing water pumps in rural areas. That work has been exceptionally important, but we can provide only a fraction of what Cambodia really needs.
  In June 1989—this is an example of how the United Nations has been unable to carry out its proper function—the United Nations Development Programme sent an exploratory mission to Cambodia. It never got further than Bangkok, because the United States and Japan vetoed the mission.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe and I visited Cambodia for a second time in. two years:. We have seen how much the country has changed in that period. Many people pin their faith on the Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen. They believe that he has the most lenient regime in Cambodian modern history. Everyone acknowledges that he is the driving force behind the reforms that have taken place.
  The legal system and the constitution have been reformed. If anyone thinks that the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I are stooges of the Cambodian
  74
  Government, let him or her understand that on two occasions we put searching questions to the Cambodian Government on behalf of Amnesty International because of our concern about human rights in the country. Over the past two years, there have been remarkable improvements, following some of our earlier criticisms. That is true especially of the practice of holding people in detention without trial. The Prime Minister said that he was considering ways of allowing Amnesty International and other international agencies such as the Red Cross to visit prisons in Cambodia.
  First, however, Hun Sen has to fight the civil war. He reiterated time after time that he was not heading a Communist regime. He asked, "Tell us where you can see it?" He wants Cambodia to be a non-aligned state. He asked, "Why is it that the West continues to punish the victims, the Cambodian people?"
  The United States and the West force Cambodia to depend on the eastern bloc. That is the only way in which the country can breathe. That is a stupid policy and it is high time that the British Government and other western Governments recognised it. I received a telex from the Cambodian Government today, in which they repeat their invitation for a United Nations mission to verify withdrawal. In the event that there is any doubt in anyone's mind, they are inviting that verification.
  We have heard much this afternoon of John Pilger. I think that he is responsible more than anyone else for raising the conscience of the British people on this issue. He went to the Foreign Office to discover who were the reasonable people among the Khmer Rouge whom the Prime Minister has mentioned so often. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Minister of State with responsibility for South-East Asia was caught napping. He has the same relationship with South-East Asia as Alice in Wonderland has with nuclear fission.
  When asked who were the reasonable elements in the Khmer Rouge, he um-ed and ah-ed and said, "The ones that Prince Sihanouk can work with." "But you must know their names," pressed Mr. Pilger, and the noble Lord's face crumpled like an autumn leaf and he gasped like a dying goldfish. His Foreign Office heavy stepped in to protect him: "Stop this now," he shouted at the cameras. "This is not the way that we were led to believe the line of questioning would go. I think the Minister is doing remarkably well under an aggressive line of questioning that we were not told we had to brief the Minister for." In other words: "It is not fair at all, because we had briefed him to tell a different set of lies."
  On 8 November, the Foreign Secretary told the House, the British Press and the public that United Kingdom policy on Cambodia was being modified and that those modifications would be introduced into the draft resolution to be debated at the United Nations on Wednesday 15 November. As my hon. Friends have said, that resolution has been altered by only two words.
  Not only has the Foreign Secretary attempted to mislead the House and the country, but we are faced with two conflicting statements of United Kingdom policy on Cambodia. First, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister state that Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units from Cambodia, but the draft resolution states only that it deplores
  "foreign armed intervention and occupation in Kampuchea."
  The Foreign Secretary's statement cites the Khmer Rouge six times and makes clear the Government's condemnation

  75
  and opposition to their return to power. However, the draft resolution, which the United Kingdom is cosponsoring on Wednesday, contains no explicit condemnation of the Khmer Rouge, nor any statement condemning its return to power. Indeed, there is no reference by name to the Khmer Rouge anywhere in the United Nations resolution.
  Such deviations would not make much difference if all that was at stake was a ritual debate at the United Nations, but the implications of such a resolution which disregards the changes which have taken place in Cambodia ensures that the Khmer Rouge continue to enjoy the prestige of their United Nations seat.
  The Foreign Secretary's statement—
  "We have never given and will never give, support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge"—
  is a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. We voted three times—in 1979, 1980 and 1981—to seat the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. Since 1982, we have not challenged the seating of the coalition controlled by the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations.
  That is why a challenge to those who occupy that seat at the United Nations is an important symbol to the people of Cambodia. They cannot understand, and nor can the Opposition, why nations such as Britain should be party to such a situation. It is as though West Germany's seat at the United Nations was occupied by Himmler, and the swastika flew at New York. Britain has therefore voted to keep the Khmer Rouge in the United Nations, ensuring it international recognition and prestige, access to funds and a right of veto in major United Nations humanitarian agencies.
  As we have heard, the coalition is made up of former Khmer Rouge murderers and include Khieu Samphan who was head of state and presided over the mass killings in 1976–80, and Thioun Prasith, a top Khmer Rouge official during the killing fields years, whose job was to tempt back from overseas Khmer intellectuals, who were then murdered in Cambodia.
  In his statement on 8 November, the Foreign Secretary said that the credentials committee of the United Nations had approved the credentials of democratic Kampuchea and that was the end of the matter. But again, that is not entirely accurate. Any country, at any time during this week's debate, can challenge the representation of Cambodia by war criminals who were their murderers only 10 years ago. Many western countries are looking for a major player at the United Nations to take a lead. Britain has a chance to speak on behalf of a small nation that has been bombed, murdered and devastated over the past 20 years.
  Since when has Britain slavishly supported mass murderers? It needs only one country—how wonderful it would be if Britain were that country—to stand up to the Chinese and American pressure which is silencing everyone else. The United Kingdom has been on the wrong side of this dirty war. Over the past 10 years, the policy of the West has been to get the Vietnamese to leave. Now we admit that they have gone, it is no longer logical to support the seating of the coalition at the United Nations or the resolution.
  76
  We need a radical rethink of our policy to release aid to Cambodia and to Vietnam. It is now illogical and dangerous to pursue the old American policy of bleeding Vietnam white on the battlefields of Cambodia.
  The Khmer Rouge have taken Pailin, an important strategic town. Their forces are reported to be about 30 miles from Battambang, the second largest city in Cambodia. We are not dealing with a fanciful possibility; we are standing on the sidelines watching mass murderers on the march. The killing has started again. According to a Chinese source, 17,000 are dead and the Khmer Rouge have knocked out a crack Government battalion, and they intend to purge 300,000 Cambodians. Even more sinister, Pol Pot is back in Cambodia. Oxfam representatives who returned from Thailand at the weekend have been told that Pol Pot is in Cambodia and is in charge of 6,000 troops, having successfully captured Pailin. The border refugee camps are preparing for war and sending soldiers to the front. There is no doubt that those camps are a prime source of sanctuary and supplies for the Khmer Rouge.
  In August 1988, the Prime Minister, in a visit to the camps on the Thai-Cambodia border, made a ringing declaration:
  "The Vietnamese must go, but we must not allow the return of the terrible Pol Pot regime in their place. No civilised country could accept that."
  The Vietnamese have gone and we have a chance at the United Nations this week to show whether we are a civilised country. There is still time. If ever there was a time for consensus, this is it. I appeal to Conservative Members to heed the common-sense voices of the British people. Three and a half thousand people have written to the Foreign Secretary, 1,500 have written to the Prime Minister and hundreds have written to right hon. and hon. Members. Unless we act, we shall be accused of a shameful and shocking stain on Britain's foreign policy.
  Finally, I shall quote one paragraph from a letter I received:
  "I write to you as a private individual. I am a member of no political party and have no vested interest. I am only a human being … Cambodia receives no aid, Vietnam receives no aid, yet Pol Pot receives aid. Great Britain is a founder member of the United Nations and a member of the Security Council yet we do nothing. A nation that talks so proudly of previous conflicts against tyranny sits back whilst the key to the killing fields is returned to Pol Pot. I implore you. In the name of humanity, DO SOMETHING."
  6.49 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), I very much welcome the debate. It is important to place on the record exactly what is happening, and in the short time available, I shall do my best to do so.
  Our objective is clear and consistent—an independent and sovereign Cambodia. We want to see peace and stability restored to Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement, which must create the conditions in which its people can elect a Government of their choice free from fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, foreign occupation or civil war. Our repugnance of the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge regime is well known. We have never given it, and will never give it, support of any kind.
  In the light of the false statements made by the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I want to put in context the humanitarian help that we are giving. Humanitarian aid is

  77
  being given to people inside Cambodia. In 1988, we contributed £250,000 to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund programme on humanitarian activities in Cambodia, and £100,000 to a special appeal by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We continue to help, and last week we announced a further £250,000 for UNICEF. In the past year, we have contributed nearly £1 million to UNICEF, the FAO and British nongovernmental organisations, which is being distributed to people inside Cambodia. That sum was in addition to the £13·7 million that was given to Cambodians in the border area.
  After the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Britain was the first country to give humanitarian aid to the camps. We believe that that was important and right. Hon. Members asked whether humanitarian aid for people in the camps is being given to groups other than the Khmer Rouge. We rely on assurances from NGOs and international organisations that British aid is being given directly to non-Communist refugees. Indeed, it is given only to camps controlled by the two non-Communist factions led by Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk. At the Foreign Secretaries' meeting tomorrow, I shall follow that up with British NGOs and other organisations to ensure that aid is being given only to non-Communist refugees in the camps.
  We shall continue to help through the United Nations border relief operation, by which help is given to non-Communist refugees, and in other ways to ensure that the needs of the Cambodian people inside and outside Cambodia are met. We are determined that humanitarian aid should be given to those who truly need it, so I am considering the position anew, which I began to do last week before the Foreign Secretary's announcement.
  Mr. Dalyell: Statements were made about British military help for South Korea during the olympic games and for help with the drugs problem in Colombia. What is the position on British military aid for Cambodia? Will the Minister clear this up?
  Mrs. Chalker: That question has been asked many times before in the House. Both the Labour Government and the present Government——
  Mr. Dalyell: South Korea, Mozambique——
  Mrs. Chalker: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish?
  We have been helping Colombia with its serious drugs problem. The question asked about Cambodia concerns the special forces. Neither previous Labour Governments nor this Conservative Government have commented on the use of special forces, and I have no intention of doing so now.
  May I deal with the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who made a valuable speech this evening and who has shown his care and concern for the Cambodian people? I may not agree with all that my hon. Friend says, but I thank him for all the work that he has done.
  The answer to the question that my hon. Friend posed on 8 November is that there has been no fundamental policy shift; the statement does not contain the untruths that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) suggested. The statement was clear, and we all know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, that
  78
  circumstances have changed in Cambodia. We have responded to take account of those changes. The current position in Cambodia is complex and changes frequently, but we must respond to it. Our most effective contribution—the answer given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe endorsed this—is to concentrate not only on providing humanitarian aid but on promoting a comprehensive political settlement.
  Many hon. Members mentioned Cambodia's seat at the United Nations. Britain's record is consistent. We voted for the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution, which was drafted by the Association of South-East Asian Nations, because we believed it right to do so. Our aim is a peaceful, independent Cambodia, whose people can decide their own future. With our friends and partners, we sought and agreed certain changes to this year's draft resolution. We made it clear not only that circumstances have changed but that we wished to remove any implication that we support the Khmer Rouge. We do not and shall not do so.
  This year's amended resolution has attracted 75 co-sponsors, because it endorses the need for a comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia and condemns the Pol Pot regime. Voting in previous years suggests that well over 100 United Nations member states are likely to vote for it in the General Assembly debate this week. I do not believe that greater changes would have received such widespread support. The debate will not address Cambodia's representation at the United Nations, which was settled on 17 October when the General Assembly adopted, without a vote, the report of the United Nations credentials committee for the forthcoming year. At a future United Nations session, we shall have to return to the question of who occupies Cambodia's seat.
  Only two countries stated any reservations in the report of the credentials committee—Byelorussia, which is one of the ways that Russia has three votes, and Laos. They stated a number of reservations on behalf of themselves and their allies about the acceptance of Democratic Kampuchea's credentials. No other country stated reservations——
  Mr. Wareing: Why not?
  Mrs. Chalker: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish the point?
  We stated that our position on credentials did not imply support for Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge, and we made it absolutely clear that we wished to return to the subject. It is not true that the occupation of Cambodia's UN seat by the coalition Government of Democratic Cambodia prevents the UN from contributing humanitarian relief inside Cambodia. UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are active, and I am certain that they will take further action.
  We believe that a comprehensive political settlement that will enable the Cambodian people to elect a Government of their choice is the best way of achieving peace. If we were to exclude, as some people have suggested, the Khmer Rouge from the peace process, it would drive them further into a guerrilla war and would make free and fair elections impossible, which is why we have backed the judgment of those who support all four

  79
  factions getting around the table. Clearly, there is no place in Cambodia's future for Pol Pot or the murderous Khmer Rouge.
  If Prince Sihanouk's judgment changed or he were no longer there, we would still need to bring all the parties to the conference table. Britain will give humanitarian aid directly to the people of Cambodia, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his answer last week. Equally vital is our work, beyond any United Nations debate, with our partners for a comprehensive political settlement. It has to be——
  Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 192, Noes 258.

  Division No. 402]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Douglas, Dick

  Allen, Graham

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alexander

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Fraser, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boyes, Roland

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Henderson, Doug

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cartwright, John

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clay, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Crowther, Stan

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Don

  Leadbitter, Ted

  80

  Leighton, Ron

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terry

  Randall, Stuart

  Litherland, Robert

  Redmond, Martin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Richardson, Jo

  Loyden, Eddie

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Ian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Rowlands, Ted

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Sheerman, Barry

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Clare

  McWilliam, John

  Sillars, Jim

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wall, Pat

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Murphy, Paul

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  O'Brien, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Patchett, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Worthington, Tony

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butler, Chris

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, W.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  81

  Dicks, Terry

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Maclean, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Madel, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Malins, Humfrey

  Durant, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Maples, John

  Eggar, Tim

  Marland, Paul

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forth, Eric

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mellor, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  French, Douglas

  Mills, Iain

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gardiner, George

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moate, Roger

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Gregory, Conal

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Harris, David

  Norris, Steve

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Paice, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Heddle, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Price, Sir David

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

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rost, Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jackson, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Janman, Tim

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shersby, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Knox, David

  Speller, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Squire, Robin

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lord, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Summerson, Hugo

  82

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Watts, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thorne, Neil

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trippier, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 189.

  Division No. 403]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Critchley, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

  Curry, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkinson, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forman, Nigel

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gardiner, George

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butler, Chris

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Heddle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  83

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Price, Sir David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Irvine, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Jackson, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Janman, Tim

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shersby, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Knox, David

  Speller, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Squire, Robin

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lord, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Sumberg, David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maples, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Marlow, Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mellor, David

  Trippier, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moate, Roger

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walden, George

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Waller, Gary

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Ward, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Watts, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wheeler, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Neubert, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wilkinson, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wood, Timothy

  Norris, Steve

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Yeo, Tim

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Paice, James

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Pawsey, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Anderson, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashton, Joe

  84

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Beckett, Margaret

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bell, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kennedy, Charles

  Blair, Tony

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Boateng, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Boyes, Roland

  Lambie, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lewis, Terry

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Buchan, Norman

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Buckley, George J.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Caborn, Richard

  McAllion, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  McCartney, Ian

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Canavan, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McKelvey, William

  Clay, Bob

  McLeish, Henry

  Clelland. David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McWilliam, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Marek, Dr John

  Corbett, Robin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cousins, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cox, Tom

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Crowther, Stan

  Martlew, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Maxton, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Michael, Alun

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Dewar, Donald

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dixon, Don

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Douglas, Dick

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mullin, Chris

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  O'Brien, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Patchett, Terry

  Flannery, Martin

  Pendry, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Pike, Peter L.

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Fraser, John

  Prescott, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Galloway, George

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Radice, Giles

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Randall, Stuart

  George, Bruce

  Redmond, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Reid, Dr John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rogers, Allan

  Hardy, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Henderson, Doug

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sillars, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Illsley, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  85

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Winnick, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wall, Pat

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's consistent refusal to give support to either the PRK or the murderous Khmer Rouge; commends its commitment to finding a peaceful and comprehensive settlement endorsed by the Cambodian people; and welcomes the increased assistance which the Government is providing for the innocent victims of this tragic conflict.

  Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  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.]
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that a Birmingham evening paper has reported that there have been behind-the-scenes negotiations about the Bill. Would not such a report cast a slur on the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, as I understand it, should adopt a completely neutral view? The report suggested that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) used his influence to bring this motion on the Bill before the House and that if he had not, he would have found it more difficult to obtain support in the House. That implies that the hon. Gentleman has special influence.
  I am sure that that must be wrong, because any promoter of a private Bill has the same influence as any other and can obtain the same prominence for his Bill. I am sure that the article is misleading. Will you assure us that it is fallacious and that the hon. Gentleman has not done a deal behind closed doors and thereby trampled on the rights of Parliament?
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I shall deal with this point first. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is saying that there might be a prima facie breach of privilege. If so, he knows the procedure and should write to Mr. Speaker. The sooner that we continue with the debate, the sooner all will be revealed.
  Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House whether it is in order for one of my hon. Friends to advise all Labour Members to go home and not to participate in the private business, as he did in a loud voice in the Division Lobby just now? I find that action reprehensible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter of tactics and has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you place on record the fact that there is no obligation on hon. Members to attend and listen to debates prior to voting? Moreover, there is never an official view on private business. There is never a view from a Government Whip or an Opposition Whip, so it is left to individual Members to advise their colleagues of the importance to be attached to that business. As I said earlier today, we ought to be debating the changing boundaries of Europe rather than the wasting of ratepayers' money on a road race. The European people will not understand the way in which the British Parliament is conducting its business today.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At long last the House has shown its willingness to debate a private Bill at a sensible time. As a rule, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rages and rants about the rights of the House and private Bills, yet now we find that he is an avid reader of the Birmingham Post all of a sudden. That is a very good thing, because it is a first-class newspaper but I do not know what that publication has to do with Bradford—unless the hon. Gentleman's remarks emanated from some other Birmingham Member.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Panel should be applauded for the fact that, at long last, private Bills are given prime time. I do not wish to offend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) whom I look upon as a friend in a Birmingham sense, but his claim that we should be discussing the problems of Europe—or Cambodia or outer Mongolia or outer space—rather then the problems of Birmingham and his imputation of the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) should bring shame to the hon. Gentleman's eyes and tears to ours.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are already launched into the debate. It would be far better to conduct it in the regular manner than by means of points of order.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not normal for me to intervene at such an early stage, but I must comment on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who alleged that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)—has used his influence improperly——
  Mr. Roger King: I have not.
  Mr. Snape: I have not finished yet.
  The implication was that the hon. Gentleman used his influence to bring the Bill before us tonight. I must rush to the hon. Gentleman's defence. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that, if the hon. Member for Northfield had any influence, he would long since have arrived on the Government Front Bench—a role that he has been seeking with passion since the day he was elected. I cannot really believe that he has any influence.
  On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who said that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had been standing in the Division Lobby urging hon. Members to go home, I can only say, as an ex-Whip, that it strikes me as odd that someone of my hon. Friend's competence should waste his time on such duties, which are extraneous, to say the least. It has always
  88
  appeared to me that hon. Members do not need too much encouragement to leave this place when they have the opportunity. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has done much to change matters.
  Mr. Frank Haynes rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?
  Mr. Haynes: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a point of order.
  I have been working. I have been a Teller at the door of the Lobby. I do not know what has been going on in there, but I do know what has been happening for the past few moments. I am a bit surprised that you did not challenge the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). We are wasting time and we should get on with the business.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am supporting the occupant of the Chair. I am a little surprised that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not have a go at the hon. Member for Selly Oak for wasting time. I am always here, but he is hardly ever here. More often than not he is flying around in a jumbo jet somewhere. I am a little surprised that you let him carry on because he was wasting time and he is usually one to complain about waste of time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is seeking to catch my eye and I now call him. Mr. Roger King.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Roger King: I am somewhat flattered by the accusations concerning my ability to influence the operations of the House. I only wish that that were true, but those who know will know that I have not been party to any negotiations directly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Indirectly?"]—or even indirectly. I have had nothing to do with them. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does me an honour by even suggesting that I have such influence. What the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said is true to an extent. That is why I sit on the second row—I am but one row from the front.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: It is early in my remarks and I do not want to take more than a few moments. Last time we debated the Bill the hon. Lady rightly pointed out that we had taken an awful long time to explain its intricacies and had allowed a large number of interventions, which cost her the opportunity to speak. Nevertheless, I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms. Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to say different things in the House and in the Birmingham press. Will he confirm the report in the Birmingham press which said that delicate negotiations behind the scenes had brought the time forward so that there would be 100 hon. Members present to carry the Bill? Will he confirm that he said:
  "I do not anticipate any problems in getting 100 colleagues to support this measure. We are very, very confident."
  He should not say different things here and to the press, as that is dishonourable behaviour.
  Mr. King: I am confident that the necessary number of hon. Members will be here. There has been a change in the timetable, but I stand by what I said—in terms of negotiations, I have not been involved. That is perfectly fair and honest.
  Let us move on to the object of our debate, which is the progress of the Bill. The subject has received considerable debate over the years. The Birmingham City Council (No. 1) Bill, which authorised motor racing in Birmingham, received much debate, with further debate on Second Reading and in Committee. On Second Reading, on Tuesday 18 April 1989, 145 Members voted for the Bill to be read a Second time and 24 voted against. That was a significant majority and reflects the overwhelming desire on the part of the city of Birmingham. Out of 65 councillors who voted, 30 Labour councillors and 31 Conservative councillors were in favour of the Bill. Sixteen Conservative and Labour councillors were against and four members of minority parties registered their disapproval.
  At that time there were eight petitioners objecting to the Bill. In the usual manner, the promoters—the city council—have discussed objections with all the petitioners prepared to negotiate. Undertakings were reached with all but three.
  The Committee met in May, with seven days of hearings and one site visit. The Committee heard evidence from representatives of the National and Local Government Officers Association, a residents association from the area of the race circuit and a residents association from somewhat further afield. The outcome of the deliberations was a number of amendments to the Bill, accepted by the promoter and to be considered by the House should the Bill be carried over. These are:
  "1. An acceptance that four days of racing would only be for Grand Prix racing, and that a three day event would be part of a Bank Holiday.
  2. The reinstituting of strict liability for personal injuries or damage to property, except for competitors.
  3. Streets being closed from 7.30 am to 7.30 pm, rather than 6.00 am to 8.00 pm"
  as originally proposed.
  "4. Equipment should be dismantled within 10 days after the event, not 20. Moreover, all work should take place between 8 am and 8 pm.
  5. A reinstituting of the agreement to pay all police costs." In addition——
  Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman has finished his list——
  Mr. King: No, I have not.
  In addition, the Committee has the agreement of the
  city council to the following 11 undertakings:
  "1. That, for a period of four weeks before the race and two weeks afterwards, the Council sets up a telephone call-line to provide full information to residents in relation to the road race and to record any complaints regarding the road race, so that immediate action may be taken.
  2. That there should be an increased provision of security patrols both for local residents and businesses.
  3. There should be an increased provision of parking areas for local residents when the circuit streets are closed, to reduce the distance between residents and their cars.
  4. That religious worship should take place during the racing period without any undue interference.
  5. That the River-Rea subway crossing should be brought into use as a circuit crossing point at the earliest opportunity, and that it should so constructed as to enable disabled persons to cross at this point.
  6. That underpass crossings should be made more welcoming, kept clean and well lit, and be clearly marked.
  90
  7. That the disabled should not at any point he prejudiced in gaining access to and from the road race area.
  8. That in any of its future building projects, or major repair works to existing buildings, within close proximity to the race circuit, the Council should consider installing double glazing.
  9. That the Council should strive to introduce permanent, rather than temporary, beautification features on the circuit.
  10. That there should be an increased number of manned crossing gates in the circuit area.
  11. That noise levels should be measured at various parts of the circuit, and that the records of such measurements should be available for public consultation."
  We believe that those amendments and undertakings go a considerable way towards easing the inconvenience of local residents and businesses.
  Mr. Rooker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has finished his list. He was speaking rather quickly and I did not hear anything about stopping the illegal use of ratepayers' money to fund the revenue account. We have had undertakings before. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is effectively in charge of the Bill. If he has not been involved in the negotiations about the Bill, but he promoted its Second Reading, can he tell us who has been involved in the negotiations, so that we know where to direct our representations?
  Mr. King: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rooker: A few moments ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), the hon. Gentleman said that he had not been involved in any negotiations. He clearly implied that other people or other hon. Members had been involved. The hon. Member for Northfield is the promoters' man on the Floor of the House. He moved the Bill and he is effectively in charge of it. Who has been responsible in this House for the negotiations about the Bill and its timetable?
  Mr. King: The city council, as is its right, made representations. I was expecting the Bill to be debated at a different time this week, but was informed that it would be debated this evening. I cannot go into the exact details, because I was not privy to them.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does not my hon. Friend find the allegations from Opposition Members of some kind of impropriety, almost of dishonesty, quite amazing? Has not the council in our city of Birmingham, through no will of ours, a large Labour majority? Is it right that hon. Members should accuse a Labour council of dishonesty? Is it possible that we should agree with Labour Members that it is dishonest? Is this not a proper Bill for the benefit of Birmingham, and is that why all the Conservative Members representing Birmingham constituencies are doing their best to help it to make progress against the opposition from some of the laggards on the Opposition Benches?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) heard what I said. Perhaps he has not read Friday's edition of the Birmingham Post. It is clear from that article that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is claiming full knowledge of the negotiations to bring the time for the Bill forward so that he could—[Interruption] It is obvious from the article that the hon. Member for Northfield is

  91
  claiming full knowledge of the negotiations and is confident that the Bill will be carried. He has said in the House today that he knows nothing about that. In that case, he was dishonest, either to the Birmingham Post or in the Chamber today.
  Mr. King: I should have thought that the best service that anyone could provide in the debate would be to allow it to proceed without examining that particular issue. Nothing will be gained from that, except a loss of time to debate the issues which undoubtedly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would like to raise.
  All matters relating to private Bills are very provisional. We are all anxious to ascertain when such a measure will come before the House. As a sponsor of the Bill, it would be part of my job to try to determine when the debate will take place. The support and the hon. Members who want to speak must be organised and we must adjust our timetable accordingly. I was given to understand that the Bill would be debated on a different day this week. However, presumably as a result of normal parliamentary procedures that are adopted in relation to any private Bill, the timetable was adjusted to this evening.
  Clearly negotiations took place between certain individuals—no doubt supporters of the Bill—who made their voices adequately known. I know that there is no record of any letter from me or any verbal approach to anyone in authority in order to change the timetable. When the timetable has been changed, as it has, that must have happened as a result of negotiations.
  Mr. Snape: I am always anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. As the hon. Gentleman so wisely said, perhaps he did not put anything down on paper. However, perhaps he would agree that a conversation took place, perhaps with Mr. Nigel Hastilow, the esteemed reporter from the Birmingham Post, during which the hon. Gentleman might have verballed Mr. Hastilow that perhaps his influence was so great in this place that the business had been changed. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might not be an unreal version of what happened last Thursday?
  Mr. King: I wish that I could confirm that I have that kind of power and authority. Alas, I have not. I was not a party to negotiations. I remained deliberately on one side because I did not want to have these aspersions cast upon me. Negotiations have presumably taken place between some individuals, and perhaps some people here today, were part and parcel of them, but I cannot say who they are.
  Mr. Barry Porter: As someone who is disinterested, but not uninterested, in the progress of the Bill, does the city council of Birmingham with its Labour majority supported by a Conservative minority want this Bill? Do the majority of Birmingham Members want the Bill? If that is so, I might be one of the 100 hon. Members required to see it through the Lobby at 10 pm. No one has asked me about it, but if that is the case, I do not believe that Birmingham Members are doing their great city much good by these childish exchanges.
  Mr. King: That is exactly the case. It is a city of Birmingham Bill. It has all-party support, and the city leader, Sir Richard Knowles, is 100 per cent. behind it, as
  92
  are all other city leaders and the Conservative opposition group. The reasons for that support are self-evident, having regard to the four events that have taken place so far and what they have brought to the city. They have indirectly made the city a centre of attraction. There has been wide international media coverage. Investment in the city of Birmingham is now about £1·5 billion—a substantial investment—entirely due to the city council's attitude to attracting business and investment from all over the globe. The council is to be congratulated.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the financial arrangements of the Bill. They were not discussed in Committee. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion, that matter must be debated further. The carry-over motion will allow us to do just that next year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as keen as ever to introduce the necessary amendments and give us his ideas on how the Bill should be changed for the better. He will not serve the House by delaying the Bill's passage if he wants to debate its financial aspects.
  Mr. Rooker: There is an excellent case for starting the Bill again and for not agreeing the carry-over motion. The questions that Opposition Members have asked about finance have been asked by senior Birmingham Tories. The hon. Gentleman owes it to his hon. Friends to raise the same doubts about financial arrangements as the Opposition have raised. Those doubts were raised also by Conservative members of the council. Labour Members opposed the Bill in the first place by a free vote. The matter is not neat and tidy. The Bill would benefit from our starting it again.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the carry-over motion. Will he explain the different paragraphs, particularly the last one, and tell us how much has been spent to get the Bill this far? As that is a necessary detail of the carry-over motion, an explanation should be put on the record.
  Mr. King: I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I will try to obtain them before the end of the debate and let the hon. Gentleman know, if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not doubt that the costs are considerable, which is why the city of Birmingham would not relish starting the passage of the Bill again. The hon. Gentleman's tactics would not be warmly applauded by the ratepayers or community charge payers. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Conservative group on the city of Birmingham council will not necessarily give the Labour council a blank cheque. They have their own interests in ensuring accountability and are of the opinion that the motor race must continue to develop and produce a profit for the city. The motor race has been successful in terms of investment in the city.
  I do not dispute that the Conservative opposition on the council are not happy about certain financial aspects. However, they are 100 per cent. behind continuing the event and see no reason why their detailed financial concerns should cause the measure to be dropped and the motor race not allowed to continue.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman was saying that he is unaware of the allocation of fees for the passage of both Bills. I understand that the figure agreed by the city council was £100,000. There has been no subsequent discussion or decision on whether extra moneys must be allocated.
  Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for those figures. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr has duly noted them.
  The city of Birmingham believes that it is worth continuing this event and that, as the Bill wends its way through Parliament, all aspects of the motor race will be discussed. Many worthwhile amendments have already been undertaken or promised by the local authority to make the event more relevant and more responsive to the local community.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman listed several decisions that were made in Committee. It would have been helpful if copies of those decisions were available. Certain points arise from the council's minutes of 21 June. Obviously, changes occurred as the Committee proceeded. There is a list of 12 points, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned only 11. A change occurred later. There is no published list. We have had only a verbal presentation, and that seems to be a general problem with private Bills.
  The hon. Gentleman's most important point about the Birmingham (No. 2) Bill is the possibility of a grand prix being held in Birmingham. He mentioned a four-day race ending on a Sunday. That matter was decided by a majority in Committee, whereas the other decisions were unanimous.
  Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We are not debating the Committee's report. That will occur in due course if consideration of the Bill is allowed to be carried over into the next Session. The list that I read out is the list to which the city has undertaken to commit itself as a result of the Committee's deliberations. Of course, it is subject to amendment and ratification by the House. I have been trying to say that real progress has been made.
  If the House agrees that consideration of the Birmingham (No. 2) Bill should be carried over to the next Session, all requirements and other items in respect of the grand prix and the Committee's decision by casting vote will be fully discussed.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is effectively in charge of the Bill, but he has no list of possible changes. Opposition Members have received no communication from the council about the Bill since Second Reading, other than a brief exchange of letters. There has been nothing of substance. The hon. Gentleman has said that certain matters will be debated. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to debate changes rather than allow the Bill to pass without further debate? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he would rather do that? The hon. Gentleman knows, as does everyone else, that the only way in which the changes can be debated is for us to object procedurally each time the Bill comes before the House so that we can create space in the parliamentary programme. However, whenever my hon. Friends and I do that, we are pilloried by prejudiced and spiteful media and by senior Tory councillors in Birmingham for simply carrying out our parliamentary duties.
  Mr. King: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last point. The press can look after themselves, but the comments and criticisms made by the Conservatives on Birmingham city council have been most discreet. They
  94
  could have been much more vociferous if they had had a mind. The supporters of the Bill are ever mindful that, even at this late stage, we could all move together, as Birmingham Members of Parliament. We are mindful of the changes that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) introduced to ensure that the Bill received a long stint of examination in the Select Committee. Indeed, the Bill is all the better for that. The recommendations that have been made were put forward after a lengthy period of deliberation and if there are any further changes that the hon. Gentleman would like to introduce, I am sure that he will have the opportunity of making his views known.
  Mr. Terry Davis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that he has made that statement once before. When the previous Bill passed through the House and ultimately became an Act of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman said that it had been much improved as a result of the opposition of my hon. Friends and myself. He said that the amendment that was introduced by Sir Reginald Eyre, on behalf of the city council, which stated that the race would stop if it had not made a cumulative profit after five years, much improved the Bill, yet he has connived at sidestepping that Act.
  Mr. King: I do not accept that. I know that we have faced a contradiction or a difficulty in the meeting of minds about the financial structure of the motor race. The hon. Gentleman voiced his grave concern about that on Second Reading, and the city has obviously taken note of the points that he made. No doubt if the House is agreeable to the carry-over motion, he will have the opportunity at a later stage to continue to voice his points of view and to seek to make changes wherever and whenever he can. I understand and fully appreciate his right so to do.,
  My point is that the city has tried to reach accommodation with all the people who have petitioned for change, and we may wait and see——
  Mr. Terry Davis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he tell the House that the amendments pressed on the Bill are to be welcomed because they improve it? The hon. Gentleman made the same sort of statement four years ago and is now party to sidestepping that provision. Indeed, "sidestepping" is the word used by the city solicitor.
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows why this No. 2 Bill is before the House this evening. When the original Bill was approved by the House, we were not aware of the change in the rules that the international motor racing body, FISA, was to introduce into the form of motor racing staged by the city. I refer to the necessity of having two days for practice and one day for the actual race when, at the moment, all that we can have is one day of practice and one day for the race. It is for that reason and that reason alone that this Bill has come before the House.
  At the same time, we are taking the opportunity of reviewing the circuit and making some alterations to it. It is also a good opportunity for petitioners and for those who have experienced problems with the motor race to come forward and to ask the city council to agree to a number of amendments. Indeed, the city has accepted such amendments. That is the way in which the Bill has been improved. As a result, it is a better Bill and more responsive to the citizens of Birmingham as a whole.
  Mr. Denis Howell: On the narrow point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which is effectively the only business before the House tonight, we are considering whether the Bill, which has now had its Second Reading and Committee stages should—because of the difficulties of the parliamentary timetable—be carried over. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Bill were carried over, the rights of hon. Members to move amendments and to make objections would properly continue, so that all that hon. Members are doing by objecting to the Bill this evening is frustrating the normal parliamentary procedures of democracy? They are stopping the Bill from being argued on its merits, although I accept that that is what my hon. Friends say that they wish to do, but the end of that process will be to cost the city of Birmingham and its ratepayers another £100,000 if we start again—and that is both parliamentary and economic nonsense.
  Mr. King: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is perfectly right. One difficulty that I face at the moment is asking for a carry-over motion when we are only halfway through the Bill's progress. Of course, there are questions still to be asked and points still to be raised—I do not doubt that for one moment—and that is precisely why we need the carry-over motion. It will mean that those points can be debated during our remaining sittings on the Bill——
  Mr. Terry Davis rose——
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Not again.
  Mr. Davis: Yes, again, because this is an important matter. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is making one of his rare appearances in the Chamber, but I want to press his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who has been here throughout our debates. The hon. Member for Northfield has said that he is proposing the carry-over motion to allow my hon. Friends and me to put forward our amendments and objections to the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious for the Bill to be thoroughly debated, why did he move the closure motion to prevent my hon. Friends from taking part in the last debate?
  Mr. King: At the end of our Second Reading debate, it was clear that that debate was centring on the financial aspects——
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman did not give me a chance to speak then.
  Mr. King: Obviously, those financial aspects caused concern to some hon. Members. During that debate we had an element of disruption because of the number of questions asked although I was happy to seek to address those questions because the Bill is contentious and Opposition Members had every right to intervene to ask their many and varied questions during my description of the Bill——
  Ms. Short rose——
  Mr. King: I shall give way, but this is the last time.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I waited in the Chamber throughout the whole of his hour-long speech and that I was the only hon. Member seeking to speak through whose constituency the race
  96
  runs. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that my constituents have strong feelings about this. Yet he was a party to preventing me from speaking and to preventing the House from hearing what my constituents had to say.
  Mr. King: The record will show that there were about 24 interventions in my speech when I presented the No. 2 Bill. The hon. Lady made several interventions on a variety of matters and I was delighted to assist her in every way that I could. It is not for me to comment on the Chair and who is called, but other hon. Members were called on that occasion. Personally, I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not called, but it is not within my power to seek to have her called. Nevertheless, if the opportunity presents itself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I very much hope that the hon. Lady will catch your eye later this evening.
  The measure having come all this way, the best course that anyone could adopt would be to allow the No. 2 Bill to be carried over into the next Session so that the many points still at issue will receive due and careful consideration. To abandon the Bill now would be disappointing for the city of Birmingham and its citizens, who in the last four events of the super prix have seen the benefits that it can bring. One accepts that this matter is not without controversy, but I believe that the measures taken by the city and those already laid down in the Bill—which, of course, need to be ratified and confirmed—show that the city wants to stage the event with the willing support and agreement of its citizens.
  8.9 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: It is my strong view that the House should not give permission for the Bill to be carried over into the next Session, because it is deeply flawed. The power already exists for a two-day road race to be held in Birmingham, but that power requires the road race to break even in five years. I shall describe later how that requirement of the House has been disregarded. The flawed Bill before us gives the power necessary to hold a four-day road race, with no requirement to break even. That is a disgrace, and it is one major reason why the Bill should not be carried over.
  My first objection to the carry-over motion, however, relates to the way in which the Bill has been handled in the House. It was introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). He spoke for more than an hour, and I sat through his speech waiting to make my own. It is not good enough for that hon. Gentleman to talk about the number of interventions in his speech—in fact there were far more interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who spoke for a shorter time.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I counted the number of interventions that my hon. Friend made in my speech. In my 30 years in the House, I have never had so many interventions in such a short speech. I am glad, however, that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to speak tonight.
  Ms. Short: My right hon. Friend is obviously not listening. I said that there were far more interventions in his speech—I agree that I made many of them—than in the speech of the hon. Member for Northfield.
  The hon. Member for Northfield spoke at enormous length, and a large part of his speech was irrelevant to the Bill. He went on and on about the convention centre and

  97
  the failed olympic bid—I do not want to trample on the feelings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath—and said how everything was hunky-dory in Birmingham. That was before the publication of the document on poverty in Birmingham, which shows that half the people in that city live in serious poverty. The hon. Gentleman, however, went on and on with his glorious picture of Birmingham, which was absolutely irrelevant to the road race. The hon. Gentleman took up too much time in that debate, and he was largely responsible for the views of my constituents not being put to the House before the Bill went into Committee.
  In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke about the finances behind the Bill, which are an important part of our objection to it. After my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill spoke, my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and the Minister made brief speeches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) then got up and was just getting into his stride when who came into the Chamber but the Government Chief Whip. He walked up to the hon. Member for Yardley, whose speech came to an abrupt halt. The hon. Gentleman nearly fell on the floor the instant the Chief Whip went up to him. The hon. Gentleman was obviously instructed to bring his speech to a rapid conclusion, which he did with total obedience——
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: And loyalty to Birmingham.
  Ms. Short: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman intended to make a long speech, but when the Chief Whip appeared and started to walk up the steps towards him he brought his remarks to a close instantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perr Barr (Mr. Rooker) then stood up to speak, but he did not get much of a chance to do so before the closure was moved.
  I do not wish to embarrass the Chair in any way, but it had been intimated—if I may put it like that—that, because the hon. Member for Northfield had spoken at such length and because the views of the people who live in the area where the road race takes place had not been put before the House, it was unlikely that the closure would be granted. The Chief Whip then arrived, however, went up to the hon. Member for Yardley and then appeared to have words with the people who make decisions about whether a closure can be given. Shortly afterwards, that closure was given.
  The procedural way in which the Bill has been handled has been unacceptable. It is obvious that the Government Chief Whip organised the votes for the closure to get the Bill through the Chamber. The husband of the Prime Minister has a financial interest in Halfords, which is a major sponsor of the road race. He has been to Birmingham to show his support for the road race, and he enjoyed the hospitality, of which there is plenty, given to prestigious visitors to the road race. I believe that there has been improper interference with the procedures of this House. There has not been proper consideration of the interests of the people of Birmingham, who are opposed to the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that Burmah Oil is short for Birmingham Oil?
  Ms. Short: No, I am not. I was just saying that the Prime Minister's husband has a financial interest in the company that sponsors the road race. It is obvious from the proceedings in the previous debate that the Chief Whip organised to abbreviate the debate to ensure that there was a closure, which was overwhelmingly carried by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Corbett: I appreciate the complaints that my hon. Friend makes about the way in which the House handles such matters. My hon. Friend should go back a step, however, to recall that the Bill was approved on a free vote by the majority of elected councillors of the city of Birmingham. Is my hon. Friend saying that those councillors, irrespective of party, totally ignored the wishes of the people they represent?
  Ms. Short: No, I am not. I do not know how much detailed information some councillors had when they voted in favour of the Bill. I doubt that they have had as much detailed information about the finances and about some of the undertakings given in the House when the first Bill was passed as is available to hon. Members because of procedures relating to the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Rooker: Through my hon. Friend, perhaps I can ask my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is my Member of Parliament if he has forgotten, that he voted against the closure on Second Reading.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: rose——
  Ms. Short: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Barnes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is not Birmingham city council that decides whether to have a Bill, but the House, and only after a discussion of the representations made to it? Hon. Members discuss the ins and outs and they make their decision.
  Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. If it was in the power of Birmingham city council to run a road race, it could do so and it would be accountable to its voters. We have the power to vote for or against the Bill, and therefore we have a duty to do our best by the people of Birmingham. We must protect their interests to ensure that some of the truth is told, as opposed to the hype and the fibs about the profitability deriving from the Bill. I consider that it is my duty to use my platform in the Chamber to put the truth on record because so many misleading statements have been made.
  Mr. Corbett rose——
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
  Ms. Short: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Corbett: Let me make it clear that, although I support the Bill, I voted against the closure because I thought that it had been inadequately discussed. I am all in favour of adequate discussion.
  Ms. Short: As I recollect, my hon. Friend thought it was important that I should have the opportunity to speak. Whether I spoke was not important: what was important was that I was the only person who had been in touch with people living on the circuit of that race. They feel passionately about the Bill, but there was no chance to put

  99
  their views on record. My hon. Friend voted against the closure, because he agreed that their views should be known.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am always fascinated to hear Socialists talking about Socialists. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has spelt out the majority held by the Labour party on Birmingham city council. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has used such words as "untruths" and "lies" and has said, "If only the truth could be told." Does she think that the Labour leadership of our great city has told untruths? We have said so more than once, but she has always said that we were wrong. Why should she be believed on this one issue?
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Bill has cross-party support as well as cross-party opposition in Birmingham——
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No thanks to you.
  Ms. Short: Perhaps there is no opposition to it on the Conservative Benches. We all know how craven they are in the face of their Chief Whip. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Conservative councillors from Selly Oak voted against the Bill at the area sub-committee meeting shortly before the debate in April——
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: They are Lefties like you.
  Ms. Short: I think that the hon. Member for Selly Oak has enjoyed himself too much earlier today——
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I have not had a chance.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is not listening as seriously as he might to what I am saying. The Bill is not about Conservative or Labour support—it has cross-party support. From reading press reports, however, it seems to me that the support of senior Conservative councillors in Birmingham for the Bill and the race is eroding. They are making more and more qualified statements about how worried they are about money and whether the race should go on as it is because they recognise that it is becoming increasingly unpopular. We must deal with what is best for the people of Birmingham, rather than cheap points misleading people about where the support comes from. There is support and opposition from both Labour and Conservative councillors.
  Dame Jill Knight: It was a pity that the hon. Lady was not called in the former debate, and I am glad that you called her this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is important that, when we discuss these matters with the eyes of our city upon us, we are absolutely accurate in what we say. I have received a number of letters from my constituents who are also on the route. I have been impressed with the way that every complaint that I have received, whether it concerns access, noise or drunkenness on the day of the race, has been properly investigated and all my constituents have been seen. If there were to be the erosion of support about which the hon. Lady speaks, we would all have received letters. I have had no such letters suggesting any erosion of support.
  Ms. Short: I have no wish to be impolite to the hon. Lady, but I have had meetings with the residents associations which have come together over the Bill. They have complained about the number of requests they have made to meet the hon. Lady and her refusal to meet them.
  Dame Jill Knight: That is not true.
  Ms. Short: That has been put to me by a significant number of people from various residents associations.
  My first objection to the Bill going any further concerns the way that it has been handled. Before it went into Committee, the people of Ladywood and those living around the circuit did not have a chance to have their views put before the House. Procedurally, that was wrong. For that reason alone, we should start again and do things properly.
  Secondly, there has been improper pressure from the Conservative Chief Whip to get the Bill through. That is an improper interference in the fair-minded consideration of the Bill and the interests of the people of Birmingham. For those two procedural reasons it is my strong view that the Bill should not be carried over and that we should, if necessary, and if it is not possible to persuade the city council to think again, start properly in the next Session and consider the Bill in a better way with less party political interference for reasons which might be improper.
  The people of Ladywood feel strongly about the Bill, and I shall attempt to put some of their views on record. That is difficult, as I have with me a large number of letters—just some of the many I have received. My judgment is that about 50 per cent. are opposed to the whole road race. The majority of people say that it could be better run and that they are worried about money. They do not say that the two-day road race should be abolished. However, there is no doubt that the overwhelming opinion of people living near the circuit is that the Bill dealing with the four-day road race should not be passed.
  I will not read out all the letters, as that would detain the House for too long, but I shall read a letter from a headmaster at a local school. I will not name him.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Why not?
  Ms. Short: I do not know whether to name him or not. I am afraid that a matter of privilege has been put before the House because of the treatment by the city council of one individual who was brave enough to try to put information before the House about the operation of the Bill. The overwhelming and disproportionate support for the Bill among senior figures in the city council means that they might use their powers to damage the interests of individuals who dare to tell the truth about the Bill.
  The headmaster wrote to me saying that he wanted to enlist my support against any extension of the road race. He said:
  "This disruption of our school environment is without precedent in the United Kingdom. It would never get any sort of acceptance in Edgbaston, Solihull, Sutton Coldfield or around the streets of Dulwich. It is a grotesque example of how people who lack political clout are treated with contempt and are walked over for the sake of commercial interest and/or vainglory. It has very little to do with genuine civic pride. For a city whose educational provision is £10 per pupil below the national average and also whose teacher-pupil ratios are amongst the worst in England, there are clearly more important ways for the city to raise its self-esteem.
  On behalf of the parents and Governors of this school, I urge you to speak most strongly against the Bill coming soon before Parliament."

  101
  That was in April, and I attempted to do as he asked.
  The letter went on to say that that school and others in the area are currently
  "fighting for our survival as inner-city secondary schools. The main problem causing the demise of falling rolls is the perception parents have of this inner-city environment ie, it is one to be moved away from as soon as possible. Is it any wonder that so many parents believe they must seek a 'better' social-educational environment for their 11-plus age children.".
  Mr. Roger King rose——
  Ms. Short: Let me finish the letter.
  It goes on:
  "The superprix and/or its extension only reinforces the perception that local parents have of this area—it is one on which they are treated with contempt—even that which they have is taken away ie, the right to some peace and quiet and not to be exploited by others.".
  Mr. King: The hon. Lady explained in that letter exactly what the motor race is all about. She says that people cannot wait to leave the rundown inner city, because nothing happens. The city is trying to develop something that is exciting for the inner city, which involves the local community and which identifies the area as one having attractions. Some of the commitments—the repair of underpasses, the landscaping of areas and the improvement of the housing stock in the environment of the motor race circuit—are exactly the things about which the headmaster is complaining. The city is doing those things thanks to the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to have the race in Northfield. He can say as much as he likes about the purposes behind the Bill, but I know better and meet more frequently the people who live there. They do not see it as he does. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech, but I can tell him, the House and the Government that, if there is any chance of moving the road race to Northfield, the people of Ladywood will vote for it overwhelmingly. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath wish to intervene?
  Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, since I have been invited. Every public opinion poll taken in the vicinity of the road race has produced a majority in favour of it.
  Ms. Short: If my right hon. Friend checked more carefully, he would see that the city council claims that only just half those living in the locality support the extension to four days. If one looks at the way the question was asked, one will see it was asked misleadingly. Anyone who knows anything about opinion polling—I presume everyone in the House takes some interest in it—will know that, if a question is asked in a distorted way, one can receive different answers.
  Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Lady claims that the question was posed in such a way as to show bias, can she tell us what the question said?
  Ms. Short: Unfortunately, I do not have—[Laughter.] I have an enormous pile of papers and if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) waited for the answer, he might be able to laugh. Surely it is only polite to wait. I have a stack of papers in the Library including that particular set of questions and answers, which I looked at half an hour ago. However, I cannot, without that piece of paper, tell the hon. Gentleman the exact
  102
  words of the question. When I looked at them, I thought again what I had thought when I first looked at them, which was that the question was inviting a certain answer. The question was something like: given that this road race is so good for Birmingham, do you not agree that it should be extended to three days? It is not quite that, but that sort of question.
  I am anxious to proceed——
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I have one of the questions here. A number of different questionnaires were available and I have an example of one question which states:
  "If Birmingham were to be offered a different sort of event, a Grand Prix, we should like the flexibility to move the dates if necessary, i.e. not on a bank holiday. Would you object to a change in the date?"
  There were 33 per cent. in support of the suggestion and 67 per cent. against.
  Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right: that was one of the questions.
  I do not have time to read all the letters in the pile in front of me, but they include representations from Volvo—a major employer and a major firm on the circuit of the race—which writes about how deeply disruptive the race is to its business and states that it does not want it extended. A local vicar from Balsall Heath church centre wrote asking that we should oppose the four-day event. The church lies in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who also opposed the Bill on Second Reading. His constituent and my constituents are disrupted by the race.
  The letter states:
  "Beside the general disruption for weeks before and after the race, as this residential area is turned into a motor-racing track, the worst experience for the residents is the exceedingly high level of noise. For many the two day event is only just bearable: four days will be intolerable. Some people in the area work nights, even over the Bank Holiday period, and need to sleep in the day. Many are elderly and infirm. There are mothers with babies who cannot begin to understand what all the noise is about. There are many people on tranquillisers. People have complained to me about suffering from headaches for weeks afterwards because of the noise. I am sure a four-day event will considerably increase discomfort and ill-health in the area. Most of the people of this area are poor. They cannot afford to go away on holiday to avoid the noise and disruption in the life of their neighbourhood. They need the protection of their elected representatives. I urge you, with other Birmingham MPs"—
  the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) may wish to hear this—
  "to oppose any Parliamentary Bill to extend the times allowed for the Birmingham super-prix."
  I have received other letters from Express Polythene, Frank Starkey Ltd., an old-age pensioner who cannot sleep at night, Smith Francis Tools Ltd., Alfred J. Parker Ltd., several other old-age pensioners, another firm, Aston and Taylor (News) Ltd., Birmingham Fellowship of Handicapped and many other employers. I have also heard from the Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades Ltd. because the race disrupts access to the markets in Birmingham. All the letters claim that these people can just about cope with two days, although the disruption is terrible, but four days would be unbearable for us as human beings and for our businesses.
  Mr. Rooker: I know that we are time-limited, and I am keen to listen to other hon. Members, and even participate myself. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will not gloss over the employers which she has just mentioned. There is

  103
  obviously a difference of balance between those employers who provide income to the city and support the city and want the race, and those who do not want it. There is evidence of enormous numbers of traditional employers, and consequently employees, who are badly affected by the Bill. On the plus side, all we are given is a couple of hotels, a few pubs and a night club. That is not even as straightforward as one might suppose, according to the representations which I have received. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not gloss over this matter, because she possesses something which no other hon. Member has: experience as the constituency Member of Parliament who represents employers on and inside the circuit whose businesses are badly affected.
  Ms. Short: There is no doubt that many major businesses and employers are affected. Volvo on Bristol road, which employs about 100 people and has a massive turnover, is totally opposed. Some misleading propaganda has been put out by the press department of the city council. There is absolutely no doubt that major employers think that it is disruptive for the city and businesses. Two days is disruptive, four days is massively worse.
  I have mentioned two reasons why this motion should not be carried: the way in which the Bill has been wrongly handled in procedural terms, and the overwhelming and passionate feeling of my constituents, local residents and businesses that four days is intolerable. The third reason for my opposition to the Bill is a matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill on Second Reading. It relates to the deeply dishonourable behaviour of the city council in relation to the Bill which has already been passed.
  When the Bill to grant the two-day road race was first proposed, I faced a dilemma. I think that racing should be done on purpose-built tracks. I am not against racing, but it is dangerous, disruptive and noisy. People who want it should go to purpose-built tracks to enjoy road racing because that makes it safer and less disruptive for other people. In my original speech, as my hon. Friends may remember, I said that I faced a dilemma because although I was against the Bill I did not feel that I had the right to overturn the view of Birmingham city council which put the proposal before the House.
  When Birmingham city council put it before us, it gave us lots of documents suggesting that the race would make masses of money for the people of Birmingham and create lots of jobs. I have one of the road race fact packs which we were given. It states:
  "The race will make money for the City Council, so the ratepayer will not lose out. We will not be taking decisions on whether to repair leaking roofs or support the road race. The road race will bring more cash into the authority's kitty."
  I was deeply sceptical about whether the road race would make money. I was deeply worried that, instead, money which the ratepayers had paid and which was desperately needed to fix up some of the tower blocks and maisonettes which surround the circuit and are riddled with black mould would be used for the road race.
  A proper insulation programme could massively improve the quality of life for the people who live in those homes. I feared that money would be used for the road race which could be spent on giving decent housing to those families. As hon. Members probably know, black
  104
  mould is not just uncomfortable and smelly, but seriously damages children's lungs. A large number of children in my constituency who live in those black mould infested flats are in and out of hospital with serious asthma and bronchitis problems.
  Mr. Bevan: How on earth can the hon. Lady say that the HIP allowance for housing and the specific allowances for housing within the block grant are adversely affected by the finances of the motor race?
  Ms. Short: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I do not know what goes on in this Chamber. I have read out some of the propaganda which the city council issued for the first road race in which it gives an assurance that it will not have to choose between the road race and leaking roofs because the race will bring money into the city. [An hon. Member: "It does."]. The hon. Gentleman seems not to be listening. The city council said that the race would be profitable and money would not have to be spent on it which would otherwise be used for repairing houses.
  I doubted that the race would make money, but I thought that the best thing we could do would be to amend the Bill to hold the city council to its promise. It was promising that it would not cost the ratepayers anything and that a choice would not have to be made between the quality of other public services and the road roace. Therefore, my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and Hodge Hill and I moved an amendment suggesting the following framework: that the power to run the road race should cease if it could not cover its costs in five years.
  We did not state that it would have to meet its cost in the first year because we understand that it might have to build up its finances, and might take a little time to do so.
  Mr. Terry Davis: My hon. Friend understates the case. We were told that the race would make a profit in three years. We suggested that the city council should be allowed five years so that there would be no possibility of it just missing the target in the third year. We were generous enough to give it an extra two years. Now we feel that we have been taken for a ride.
  Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. We gave more than was asked. We thought that things could go wrong, it could rain—it certainly rained horrendously in the first year. We did not ask for the race to make a profit, but to break even in five years. We negotiated with the leader of the city council and it was agreed that this was a useful and helpful suggestion for the people of Birmingham and would be incorporated in the Bill. Sir Reginald Eyre, the then Member for Hall Green, sponsored the Bill on behalf of the city council. He said that our amendment proposal was wholly acceptable and that the city council would not want to run the race if it cost the ratepayers money. We were pleased and thought that, with this reasonable compromise, we had protected the interests of the people of Birmingham, and the leadership of the city council was happy with our amendment. Our proposal meant that the race could not cost money which should be spent on children's books, leaking roofs, black mould in flats, and so on.
  The road race did less well than expected, and the accounts looked bad. The council was worried that the

  105
  power to run the race would lapse because it could not cover its costs, so it took legal advice from Price Waterhouse and went back more than once on that advice.
  I have questioned the legality of all this with Price Waterhouse, and the company informs me that legal advice was taken on several occasions before what follows was done. It was decided that the running of the road race was worth £500,000 a year in advertising to the city of Birmingham, in terms of tourism promotion. It was further decided that that amount could be attributed to the value of the race in the accounts, thus converting a loss-making race into one that covered its costs.
  This might be legal, but it is dishonourable, representing as it did a breach of the agreement that we had reached and of the words of Sir Reginald Eyre, who had said that the city council did not want to run the race if it cost the ratepayers money.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the form of accountancy in which the city is called upon by auditors, Price Waterhouse, to put in the accounts the amount by which the city is estimated to have benefited was imposed on the city and the Bill by my hon. Friends, who were thus hoist with their own petard? As a result, the council had to call in outside experts, specialists in international propaganda, who told it that the value of the race to Birmingham was £600,000. Price Waterhouse then had to insist that the city paid the £600,000 into the account to cover the requirement imposed by my hon. Friend.
  May I further tell my hon. Friend——
  Ms. Short: No—my right Friend is making a speech instead of an intervention.
  Mr. Howell: It is important that she gets the facts right.
  The race made an operational loss of £173,000 in 1986, an operational profit of £76,500 in 1987, and last year, 1988, an operational profit of £536,000—more than half a million pounds. That must be good business for Birmingham.
  Ms. Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me.
  The figures that my right hon. Friend quoted take into account the notional value of £600,000 for promoting Birmingham. That is a false profit, derived from promoting what is, in the eyes of the world, a potty little road race in Birmingham, at the expense of my constituents—and still the race cannot cover its costs.
  My right hon. Friend's first point was also 100 per cent. wrong. We put it to the city council that the road race should be required to recover its costs, and that if it could not, the power to run it would lapse after five years. The council went away to its legal advisers and asked our co-operation in framing the amendment in the way that the council wanted.
  We know that the accounting procedures for the road race are different from normal local authority accounting, but let us not allow that technical point to get in the way of what I consider the city council's deeply dishonourable behaviour in misleading the people of Birmingham. The council promised that the power to run the road race would cease if it cost the ratepayers money; it was then found that the race could not cover its costs; legal advice was taken and a way around the provision was found.
  106
  It is dishonourable to pretend that the race is worth £500,000 in promotion, but that was done to square the books and return the legal power to run the race. That still makes me angry when I think about it, and most people in Birmingham are unaware of how badly they have been misled by the sort of figures given my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath——
  Mr. Terry Davis: Does my hon. Friend remember that the subsidy from the rates was charged to a promotion of tourism account that was already in deficit, so that the true effect of what the council did was to reclassify a loss?
  Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters. An attempt was made to mislead people about the road race covering its costs—it cannot. If a race that causes all this disruption cannot cover its costs, it is a waste of time——
  Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Short: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman believed in public services. I do; priorities are caring for people and spending money on those who are in great need. The hon. Gentleman believes in subsidising an unprofitable road race out of the rates—and out of what is to be the poll tax—for the pleasure of his racing friends. They should pay for their own pleasures.
  Mr. King: Has public money been taken out of the housing, education or social services budgets in the city accounts to subsidise this race? I do not think that the hon. Lady can find a penny piece that has been.
  More importantly, the accusation that the hon. Lady has just levelled at the city is astounding. She has called city officers dishonest—and, by implication, the city leader and the leader of the council——
  Mr. Terry Davis: She has not.
  Mr. King: She has. It is eveident to me that the word "misleading" could he interpreted as dishonest—a serious charge to level at our city's officers and leaders.
  Ms. Short: I have heard that men of a certain age acquire hearing problems. Three or four instances of that seem to be present this evening. Whenever I say something, an hon. Gentleman gets up and appears not to have heard it. I said that I believed that getting around the provisions of the Act in which it was agreed that the race should break even or be discontinued after five years was deeply dishonourable. That is what I said and that is what I meant.
  Mr. King: That is worse.
  Ms. Short: At school we told each other to wash out our ears if we could not hear properly. The word that I meant and used was "dishonourable".
  I am upset and surprised that the city council of Birmingham, with the agreement of all parties and of its senior officers, is willing to behave so dishonourably——
  Mr. Denis Howell: Say that outside.
  Ms. Short: I have said it outside, and I have corresponded with those who objected to my doing so. We have all explained to each other why I used the term——
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend was being charitable; would she term this activity creative accounting?
  Ms. Short: It would be charitable to call it that. It is a legal breach of an agreement. The council found a technical and legal way to break its word and the spirit of an amendment to a Bill that was passed in this House.
  Mr. Rooker: In good faith.
  Ms. Short: Yes, and when we reached the agreement, there was good faith on both sides.
  Other parts of the legislation and other agreements have also been breached. We felt strongly that, if the people of Birmingham were to subsidise the race even for five years, they should have better access to it than others. We thought it fair and right that the people of Birmingham should have access to cheaper tickets than people from other parts of the country. That was accepted and it was on the face of the Bill, but it has been breached and ignored.
  I do not know why the House bothers to pass legislation for Birmingham, because Birmingham does not seem to take any notice. The council looked at our suggestion about tickets and thought that it was inconvenient and difficult to provide them for the people of Birmingham, so instead they provided cheaper tickets for those who bought them in advance of the race, and that is a breach of the law. If some people who did not get cheap tickets were richer, they would probably take legal action on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke about cigarette advertising. I know that undertakings were given. Were they incorporated in the Bill?
  Mr. Terry Davis: I have looked into the matter and I think that the verbal undertakings have been kept to the letter. Tobacco is advertised on a car that takes part in the race, but I would not accuse the city council of having broken that undertaking. The undertaking was worded in such a way that the council has kept it.
  Ms. Short: That is interesting. It is a matter that interests my hon. Friend rather than me, but I thought that there was an agreement that there would be no promotion of South African people or of cigarettes. I went to the road race last time. I did not go to the stands, nor did I partake of the hospitality. I visited the houses and gardens of some of my constituents. There is an unbearable noise when the cars pass and I saw a car advertising, I think, Marlboro cigarettes. I seem to remember an undertaking about not advertising cigarettes. When we met senior figures in the council in the early stages of the Bill, the undertaking that cigarettes would not be advertised was repeated.
  Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend's recollection is correct. I sought undertakings from the city council on two matters: that there should not be sponsorship by any company well known as being involved in South Africa, and that the race should not advertise tobacco and particularly cigarettes. I have checked the file and the letter that I subsequently received from the city council. I think that the city council has honoured that undertaking. I believe in approaching the Bill and the whole question of the road race objectively. We should not accuse anyone of bad faith in respect of those two undertakings.
  Ms. Short: I am pleased to hear that, because it restores my faith a little. I have never taken a major interest in that point, but I was shocked when I saw the Marlboro car go rushing by. The legislation lays down strict times about when the barriers can be erected and taken down. Those rules are unquestionably breached and anyone who lives in any of the streets will say they are erected earlier and taken down later, sometimes in the middle of the night when there is supposed to be no noise.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is shocking.
  Ms. Short: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Selly Oak is shocked. This year, when I went to the road race, tenant after tenant in houses next to the circuit complained about the unbearable noise. It is an incredible noise, which hurts one's ears. I met the leader of the city council, and he said, "What do you think?" I said that I did not like it very much. He said "It is terribly noisy—unbearable isn't it?" He said that as he left the circuit after the major race of the day. The noise is uncomfortable, especially for elderly people and children. If readings were taken of the noise levels I am sure that they would be found to be above the danger to health level.
  I see that the council has undertaken to monitor future noise levels. I understand that the council monitored the levels this year but will not publish the results. Last year or in previous years it handed out free ear plugs.
  Mr. Corbett: It did that this year.
  Ms. Short: Not to everybody. I was there, and as I walked up and down people said to me, "We got free ear plugs last year but we have not all got them this year." I know that the people in the hospitality tent gave them out. As I was leaving, the leader of the city council gave me his, and I still have them on my desk in Birmingham. However, they were not given to all the people who live in the area and who need them more than the visitors, because they are in the area all the time.
  Leaving aside the matter of tobacco—I accept the correction of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill on that—there are other serious breaches of the agreement. The big one is the breach of the undertaking to break even in five years or stop. There are also breaches about the times of erecting the barriers and cheaper tickets for the people of Birmingham, an agreement that was on the face of the Bill and which has been breached.
  The hon. Member for Northfield recited a list of undertakings about what the city council will do. Second time around, I am afraid that I do not believe that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman gave the undertakings in good faith. However, I am sure that, when Sir Reginald Eyre said that it would not be the wish of any hon. Member or of anyone on the city council to run the race if it cost the ratepayers money, he did so with an absolute commitment. However, we have seen breaches of the undertakings.
  Undertakings are welcome as far as they go, but they are not necessarily honoured. They are only undertakings, and were not even on the face of the Bill. Leaving aside the continuing argument about money, the undertaking about cheap tickets for the people of Birmingham has been ignored. It was also said that religious worship would be respected. People in the churches on the circuit cannot hear themselves praying when a race is on, and to say that they will be able to continue with religious worship is a

  109
  joke. They will not, because it will be impossible. I am afraid that I do not believe the undertakings given by the hon. Member for Northfield.
  There is another matter relating to accounts. People in Ladywood are sceptical about what is included and what is excluded in the accounts. Some extraordinary things are going on. This is a neglected area with terrible problems of black mould in the houses. People come along just before the race and paint the houses fronting the circuit. Houses round the corner do not get painted. Curtains are put up in empty flats so that, when television cameras pan the area, viewers will not see empty windows.
  People who live in the area and whose real needs and those of their children and local schools are neglected get very angry and cynical about such behaviour. I do not believe for one minute that the accounts reflect the real cost of the race, because we know that they take account only of staff who are almost wholly employed in organising the race. All the people who clean up the area, put out the flowers, do the painting and so on are not included in the accounts.
  The people who live there are extremely cynical. I have had many letters and complaints, some of which I have sent on. People say, "Just because I live off the circuit, my house has not been painted. Houses round the corner that are on the circuit have been painted twice, but mine has not been touched because the television camera will not pan across it." Those that are painted are painted only in the front and not at the back.
  One of the undertakings given today was that double glazing would be fitted to houses near the circuit. Imagine the cost of that.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Does my hon. Friend object to that?
  Ms. Short: If people are to be subjected to horrendous noise, they should have double glazing, but it would be much better to put the race on a purpose-built circuit so that they are not subjected to such noise.
  Mr. Terry Davis: I have some experience of this, and I know that secondary glazing should be provided, not double glazing. Secondary glazing to cut down noise is well known in my constituency because of the nuisance from Birmingham airport. The problem with secondary glazing is that it is effective only if one keeps the windows closed. This race takes place on August bank holiday—the very time when people like to have their windows open.
  Ms. Short: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I know that his constituency suffers because of the noise from the airport. However, the airport is a different problem. Races should be put on a track, so that the noise does not affect people so much. Instead of the money being spent on double glazing, it should be used to tackle the black mould. I feel strongly about that, because it is a serious problem that can be dealt with, and the money has not been found to do so.
  The Bill should not be carried over, because of the sheer intolerable disruption that it causes to people's lives. When the race was on this year, I visited a number of my constituents whose houses are on the circuit and I heard the noise, which is unbearable. It is fine if one goes to a road race because one chooses to go, is excited to go and is happy to subject one's ears to this unbearable noise. However, if one lives on the circuit,
  110
  one is subjected to it whether or not one wants to be. When people complain, they are told to go away, but when they go away, their houses are broken into and their gardens are used as urinals. People feel that they need to stay in their houses to look after them when crowds are coming to the area.
  There is also enormous disruption to traffic in the period leading up to the race, caused by the erection of barriers. I imagine that the hon. Members for Northfield and for Selly Oak know about that. Taxi drivers and others complain about it.
  Furthermore, once the barriers are up, buses are diverted. This is a poorer area with relatively low car ownership and people who have to use buses to go into town to do their shopping cannot get on them. They object to that.
  I do not know whether hon. Members know, but when the armco kerb is erected, mothers with children and pensioners cannot get out of their houses properly, so little ramps are built to help such people. Unfortunately, a number of elderly people fell off the ramp over the armco kerb so that they could get out of their houses to do their shopping. This is all for a two-day race.
  I have a letter here from one of my constituents, Mr. O'Donnell, of 21, Hodnet grove, who sent for a doctor because he was ill. The doctor came at 11.30 am, was not allowed in, went away and did not come back till 5 pm, although the organisers said that they would provide access. Happily, although he was in pain, my constituent did not suffer from a worse illness because of this lack of treatment.
  Church services are enormously disrupted, and that is greatly objected to.
  I made it clear at the beginning of my speech, and I make it clear again, that the city of Birmingham already has legal powers to run a two-day road race. It should concentrate on running it efficiently, covering costs and not disrupting the lives of local people. A four-day race will be unbearable, because of the disruption and costs. Contradictory things are said about this four-day race. Sometimes we are told that it will become a grand prix, which will mean that there will be four days of racing, which will be unbearable for local people. Sometimes, we are told that it will be only a three-day race, but in that case why does the Bill take powers for four days?
  The Bill has been wrongly handled. It would be better to start again. It is intolerable to suggest that powers should be granted for a four-day race with no constraint on expenditure. For that reason alone, it would be better to lose the Bill and start again next Session. It is in the interests of the people of Birmingham that this road race ceases. I think that if hon. Members met and knew my constituents, they would agree with me, and would not vote for a four-day race. It has been ridiculously hyped up. Screaming noisy cars should not go round where people live.
  When I saw the race, I was interviewed by a man, whose name I have forgotten, who produces a motor racing programme. He said that it was a rotten track and that at hardly any point could one see what was going on. It may be exciting to have a race where people live, but it is a bad track. It is not a good shape for road racing. It is rubbish on every level. I appeal to the House not to carry the Bill over to the next Session.
  9.4 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I shall intervene only briefly—the motion is strictly procedural—to advise the House of the Government's view. My hon. Friends may rest assured that I am not the Government Chief Whip. They need have no fear that my words will in any sense cause them to worry.
  The House knows that traditionally the Government stand neutral on private Bills, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. It was made clear to the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who was then the Minister responsible, intervened on Second Reading that the issues raised by the Bill are essentially of local concern. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Government to intervene. It would be consistent with that approach for the Government to support the carry-over motion.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I have been referred to in the debate, it having been said that on a previous occasion my speech was short. I acknowledge that. I spoke for only a short time because I wished to allow another two Labour Members to contribute to the debate. I regret that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) did not speak on that occasion, but she certainly had her fill this evening. We listened to 55 minutes of innuendo, accusations and distortions of quotations. That did little honour to Birmingham, to the level of the debate and to the great majority of the people of Birmingham, who want the debate and want the car race. That being so, they want the carry-over motion to be agreed to.
  There has been talk in the Chamber of 6:1 being in favour of the Bill and the car race—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ladywood is leaving the Chamber after the accusations that she made. In Birmingham, however, there was a clear majority in favour of the Bill. There was no bias in the question that was put to the people of Birmingham—that was made clear when it was read out to us—and there has been no dishonour.
  Birmingham and the midlands are benefiting from tourism by about £1,000 million a year, and it is imperative that the city is associated with the motor car. The motor car is one of its earliest manufactures and it is something for which the city is historically well known. The car race offers a showroom window to the world.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) were, like me, members of Birmingham city council for a long time before coming to this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I were members of the council for far longer than we have been members of the House. I served on the council for 21 years and I know that my hon. Friend served on it for longer than that. The right hon. Member for Small Heath served between 1946 and 1954.
  Mr. Denis Howell: No, 1956.
  Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I should like to be accurate in every respect during my speech, unlike some of those who have spoken before me.
  The right hon. Member for Small Heath knows, as we all do—he, my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I are the only three people present who served on the city council—that Birmingham has wanted the Bill for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I voted for such a measure as long ago as 1973 when the issue first arose. I am pleased to say that the Bill is now unstoppable unless some Opposition Members—a small minority—are successful in their determination to block the measure by introducing every disruptive practice that they can.
  The prime motive behind the Bill is safety, which is of paramount importance in motor racing. The international governing body, FISA, is responsible for the safety of drivers and tracks. Its rules become stricter year by year. We must applaud FISA and ensure that its rules are abided by. One of the greatest racing drivers in history has recently learnt that safety rules must be abided by, probably at the cost of losing a world championship. Therefore, I remind the House that the principal purpose of the Bill is to improve safety in the pits and on the track. Without the legislation, the international licence of the Birmingham circuit is in jeopardy. A vote against the Bill is a vote not only against the promoters' ambitious plans to extend the event, but against the race itself.
  In my view, the hon. Member for Ladywood committed political suicide when she announced her real intention in the last minutes of her speech. Unlike that of most other people, her real intention is to stop the Bill and to delay or jeopardise the future of the race. Other cities, in Britain and abroad, would be very anxious to take up the challenge if Birmingham were to lose it. The longer the race is established, the safer it is and the safer Birmingham's lead in world terms.
  One of my portfolios on the Back Benches is tourism, so I know that the figures are right. Hoteliers are reporting greater use of hotels and the value to tourism of activities such as motor racing is accelerating in Birmingham. It means more jobs in the inner city, in Ladywood, in Sparkbrook, in parts of Hodge Hill and certainly in parts of Yardley. It would be madness to object to those economic gains.
  Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bevan: The debate has been characterised by continual interventions and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make my case as quickly as I can so that he can question my speech in the context of his own.
  The race has been one of the contributory factors to £1·5 billion investment in the city and an endorsement of the enterprise for which Birmingham is so famous. That is an all-party endorsement because Birmingham is not divided on this matter. The only divisions are the few that have been so vocally expressed tonight. All the great things that exist in Birmingham—the national exhibition centre, the convention centre which is almost finished and the Birmingham international airport and station—were all carried through on an all-party basis, as is our tradition.

  113
  I have been privileged and honoured to be part of that process. To suggest, under the protection of this Chamber, that our officials have behaved dishonourably is an absolute iniquity. On behalf of those officials I must stress that they have committed no malfeasance whatsoever and the case has been put fairly and honourably, as it deserves. Tonight an attempt has been made to perpetrate a moral defeat by using procedural means to defeat a Bill which has almost, the wholehearted support of those on the council, in the city and in the country.
  I am certain that hon. Members who object to the Bill are sincere, but why do they always object to measures that, given time, will not only be profitable for the city's coffers and underwrite matters of greater social importance but will give people pleasure? I cannot and will not understand that attitude.
  We want to support industry, and what better way of showing that than by supporting the industry that has been the heart of the midlands—the car industry? The race does not deprive Birmingham of money, but it adds to the spectrum of the city and to the quality of leisure in it. It is of much value to the Rover Group and other manufacturers and all the component manufacturers who employ Brummies.
  Although the race may occasionally be noisy, and although occasionally it might be the cause of verbal abrasiveness in the House or outside, it is welcome. Birmingham is a warm and welcoming and exciting place, and once experienced it is not easily left or forgotten. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to agree to the carry-over motion and to continue to give the city its car birthright.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: Although I feel strongly about the Bill, about which I have spoken previously, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be glad to hear that I shall attempt to put my succinct points succinctly.
  Some important points must be made. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has left the Chamber—I am sure for good reasons—but I am sure that she will not object to my replying to some of the points that she made. My hon. Friend let the cat out of the bag in the last two minutes of her speech. For 55 minutes, she urged us not to pass the carry-over motion but to introduce a new Bill and to reconsider financial and other matters. Having urged that on us, she said that we should kill the road race. It was quite clear to hon. Members that whatever the city council did she would not support a Bill for a road race in any circumstances. Therefore, her plea——
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend said, in her constituency.
  Mr. Howell: I accept that amendment. Her plea to introduce a new Bill for the race, which is located in her constituency, would therefore never receive her support.
  I need not remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are debating the carry-over motion. We should not be debating the merits of the road race——
  Mr. Rooker: We are not.
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says that we are
  114
  not. In that case, I must have misunderstood the lengthy speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood.
  The Bill has properly gone through its parliamentary procedures, but hon. Members voting against the carry-over motion are voting not to continue parliamentary discussion of the Bill.
  Mr. Rooker: In this Session.
  Mr. Howell: In this next Session. The carry-over motion is to allow us to continue discussion in the next Session. Some of my hon. Friends do not want to debate the merits of the Bill in the next Session, which is why they oppose the carry-over motion. I do not approve of that extraordinary parliamentary procedure. I have strong views about the private Bill procedure, which has got out of hand, but they are probably not so strong as yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have my sympathy in dealing with that dilemma. When the public are required to bring a private Bill before the House to get parliamentary authority for their actions, they are entitled to have the procedures on the Bill followed in the ways laid down by Parliament. My hon. Friends are objecting to that.
  There is no doubt that many Birmingham citizens support the Bill. Even those living close to the race supported it in a poll. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood conceded that just over 50 per cent. voted for it. That is a majority among the people most likely to be affected. The Bill certainly has the support of a majority of the members of the city council, and I am glad to say that it has the support of at least eight of the 12 Birmingham Members of Parliament. That should not be lightly forgotten.
  I should like to deal with a financial point. I gave some figures in an intervention, so I shall not go over them again. In 1988, the last year for which we have published accounts for the race, there was an operational profit of about £582,000—a tremendous profit. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Bar intervenes, may I say that I agree that that includes the £600,000. My hon. Friend has a big responsibility for that sum, to which he will not admit. After taking account of that £600,000, the deficit this year was about £17,000 overall. The cost to the ratepayer this year was about £17,000.
  Mr. Rooker: It was £600,000.
  Mr. Howell: It was not £600,000, but £17,000.
  Mr. Rooker: It was £600,000.
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend does not understand the figures. The operational profit was £582,000. As my hon. Friend said, the cost to the city of promoting the race was £600,000. If my hon. Friend does a little mathematics, he will see that subtracting £582,616 from £600,000 leaves the cost to the ratepayer—£17,384. That was the actual cost.
  Mr. Rooker: No, it was £600,000.
  Mr. Howell: I am coming to what we got for that. Did the city council get value for that money? I want to comment on the £600,000 about which my hon. Friends feel so strongly. It was imposed on the city council by my

  115
  hon. Friends because of their representations that every penny possible should be put into the accounts in accordance with proper accounting procedures.
  Mr. Rooker: Come on.
  Mr. Howell: That is what my hon. Friends were asking for. Because of that pressure, it was proposed in an amendment, to which my hon. Friends did not object, that the accounts must be made on the basis of what was technically termed a "true and fair view" basis. That was the form of words imposed on the city council.
  Ms. Short: It was drafted by the city council.
  Mr. Howell: It was drafted by the city council, but at the insistence of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howell: Of course I will give way, when I have finished my point. I do not want to stop my hon. Friend from making his point. I remember the "true and fair view" basis in the amendment drafted by the city council to meet the pressures put on it by my hon. Friends to have proper accounting.
  Mr. Davis: I was closely involved in discussions with Sir Reginald Eyre on the city council's behalf. The discussions took place in the presence of parliamentary agents on behalf of the city council. I was pressing Sir Reginald Eyre, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to accept the inclusion in the Bill of the principle that there would not be any charge to the rates and the proposal that if the race did not make a cumulative profit after five years—the council was actually offering three years—it would be stopped.
  The wording of the amendment was provided by Sir Reginald Eyre and I believe that it was drafted for him by parliamentary agents to give effect to his and the city council's assurances. We were simply asking the city council to include in the Bill what it said it wanted to do in any case. It is not correct for my right hon. Friend to accuse me and my hon. Friends of having drafted the amendment or of being in any way responsible for any defective wording in the city council's effort to give legal effect to what it had offered and we had accepted.
  Mr. Howell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Everything that he says supports my contention. I certainly never said that my hon. Friends drafted the amendment—I said that they pressed for this form of accountancy.
  Mr. Terry Davis: My right hon. Friend is wrong. Will he give way?
  Mr. Howell: No, I will not give way. I am describing what happened correctly.
  Mr. Davis: That is wrong.
  Mr. Howell: I do not believe that I am wrong.
  Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend was not there; I was. Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howell: Sit down. I know that my hon. Friend was there, but I was the recipient of the Bill when it came back here. The wording that I have read out to the House was designed to meet the pressure that the city council thought
  116
  was being put on it. Perhaps the council was wrong, but it took advice and the amendment was drafted. To the best of my knowledge, no hon. Member objected to that form of accountancy when we discussed the Birmingham City Council Bill.
  Mr. Davis: That is wrong.
  Mr. Howell: Let me explain. I must say that I do not want the £600,000 to be included. However, the wording having been accepted, Price Waterhouse said that if we had to have true and meaningful accountancy, the accounts must include the value that the city received from advertising itself worldwide as a result of the race. That is the history of the matter.
  Mr. Davis: No, it is not.
  Mr. Howell: Yes, it is. We must consider next whether we have had good value for the money.
  Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend is wrong.
  Mr. Howell: I do not think that I am. I accept my hon. Friend's account of what happened, but my interpretation of what he said happened is that it resulted in the drafting of the amendment.
  Mr. Davis: That is wrong.
  Mr. Howell: I believe it to be the case.
  Mr. Davis: It is wrong.
  Mr. Howell: I support the race not only because it is a major sporting event, and I have spent all my life trying to bring major sporting events to Birmingham, but because the most important aim in inner cities——
  Mr. Davis: No.
  Mr. Howell: I do not know what my hon. Friend is objecting to.
  Mr. Davis: I repeat to my right hon. Friend that he is mistaken. I accept that he is misinformed, but the account that I gave—and he has accepted—of the discussion that took place with Sir Reginald Eyre did not suggest any particular form of words for the amendment or for the type of accountancy to take place. That all came from Sir Reginald Eyre, the city council and the parliamentary agents. It is wrong for my right hon. Friend to suggest that we were in any way involved in the drafting.
  Mr. Howell: I did not say that.
  Mr. Davis: Sir Reginald Eyre gave an assurance to the House that the amendment proposed by the city council met our points. If it is defective, responsibility rests with the city council.
  Mr. Howell: That may be so, and it may be the common ground between us, but I must stress that the amendment was drafted by parliamentary agents and lawyers in an attempt to meet the points that were urged on them about the need for proper constructive accountancy. As a result, my hon. Friends have what they did not expect and what I do not want either. Price Waterhouse—the auditors imposed by the Government, not by the city—told us that in that case we must include the value of the race to the city in promotional terms. That amount is estimated by other consultants and experts to be £600,000. That is not disputed.

  117
  Have we had value for money? The second reason why I support the race—if my hon. Friends agree that this is the case, they will agree that it is desirable—is that we must bring jobs into Birmingham. All the inner-city constituencies which I and my hon. Friends represent have an unemployment level of about 30 per cent. I hope that hon. Members supporting the Bill will not mind my saying that our unemployment problems in Birmingham will not be solved by the Government, but by us. [HON. MEMBERS "That is true.] I agree with that, too. It is all part and parcel of the promotion of the city internationally through the olympic campaign, which I had the privilege to lead, the international exhibition centre, for which there was all-party support, the international convention centre, which promises to be an outstanding success, and the international indoor sports arena. I used some influence to have the arena built in Birmingham with great effect, and it is now being built. It will be the only international indoor sports arena in the country. All such projects are vital. With the grand prix road race, they result in £1·5 billion being invested in Birmingham.
  Mr. Rooker: Who is arguing against that?
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is arguing against a bit of it.
  Mr. Rooker: In the few minutes at the end of Second Reading I separated out all the examples that my right hon. Friend has just given. They are all solid capital assets for our city which will be of undoubted benefit to future generations. However, one cannot by any stretch of the imagination equate the road race with such solid capital assets. It is simply a revenue plughole.
  Mr. Howell: The accumulation of public relations and the projection of the city combine to produce the result. No one can deny that the grand prix road race is part of the accumulation aimed at presenting the modern face of Birmingham. This year, 100,000 people watched the road race. Birmingham citizens and others voted with their feet by turning up to watch.
  Mr. Rooker: That is 1 per cent. of Birmingham's citizens.
  Mr. Howell: One hundred thousand people turned up to watch the race and at least 10 million watched it on television. No sports event in the history of this country has been televised by Independent Television, Central Television and the BBC all at once. It is the only time that a weekend sporting event has been televised simultaneously by every channel available.
  Ms. Short: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend attended the race this year, but I have been to it in previous years. It was notable that many of the stands were empty. The people who live nearby say that the numbers were undoubtedly down this year, perhaps because it was beautiful weather. Is my right hon. Friend saying that 100,000 tickets were sold?
  Mr. Howell: No, I did not say that. I said that 100,000 people turned up.
  Ms. Short: Some of them cannot help it.
  Mr. Howell: Let me answer the point. There were 88,000 people who paid to watch the race. This year, the
  118
  city council, in its wisdom, decided to allow people to bring their children free. There were 88,000 adults at the race and 12,000 children accompanied them. My hon. Friend should welcome that because she has been urging that people in Birmingham should be given concessionary tickets.
  Mr. Corbett: As research into attendance at the race last year shows, two out of three people who paid to watch the road race were from outside Birmingham. Is that not important because, but for the road race, that money would be unlikely to come to Birmingham?
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite right. The road race is part of our attempt to promote the city, and I do not know how it could be done better. It cost us about £17,000 in 1988. Where else in the country could one achieve as much for £17,000? The race has been projected to about 30 different countries worldwide; 11 million people watched it in this country and 100,000 people turned up and paid to watch it. That is fantastic——
  Ms. Short: Did you go?
  Mr. Howell: No, I did not go because I was having a heart attack at the time. If I had heard my hon. Friend's speech before my heart attack I might not have survived, but due to the care of the National Health Service I am in more robust form than before.
  Ms. Short: We are all extremely glad that my right hon. Friend survived. He spent some of the time in Dudley Road hospital in my constituency, and I am sure he received superb care there. We are all very pleased to see him looking so well.
  Mr. Howell: My survival was due to the co-operation of Dudley Road hospital in Birmingham and the National Heart hospital in London and I am glad to say that all is well.
  Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend should take it easy.
  Mr. Howell: I intend to take it easy, but my hon. Friend must not provoke me. If my surgeons were here, they would be getting upset.
  Almost every country in Europe and countries world-wide broadcast the road race, which appeared not only in its own right but on all the news bulletins. It was very good value for Birmingham. That is why we should carry the Bill over.
  I do not want to stop my hon. Friends objecting to the Bill. They have every right to do so, and I do not complain about that for one moment. But the time for them to voice their objections will come on Report and Third Reading. If we pass the motion to carry the Bill over, my hon. Friends will have every right to object in those debates. If we do not carry the motion, we shall kill the Bill and prevent ourselves from taking advantage of the merits of the race. That would be unacceptable from the point of view of the House and of the city of Birmingham. I urge the House to support the motion.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This has been an interesting debate in which Conservative Members' views have been almost peripheral to the argument taking place on the Opposition Benches

  119
  —which would be a cause for satisfaction were the Bill not so important to the city of Birmingham and its long-term plans.
  I have some sympathy with the proper point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that people's lives are regularly interrupted by developments such as this. When I was a young councillor—as will be obvious, that was many years ago—I secured a bus stop that someone very much wanted. In fact, I did so well that the bus stop was outside the person's house. He never ceased to complain because he wanted the bus stop in his road but outside someone else's house. The same can happen with airports. We all know that Birmingham international airport is of huge importance to the city, but we do not want the flight path over our homes.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No, I shall not give way. I want to complete my point for the sake of Birmingham people.
  Of course we need airports, but they disturb people's lives. The same is true of the national exhibition centre. I was a founder director and signed the contract on behalf of the city. That, too, interrupted many people's lives—as does the convention centre. One can make a good argument against nearly every development on the ground that it will inconvenience someone.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood argued that many of her constituents would be put out, and I do not doubt for one moment that that is a proper argument. Cars, like motor bikes, are noisy things. But we must look further than that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) pointed out, I served on Birmingham city council for 23 years with many splendid Socialist as well as Conservative councillors. We spoke for Birmingham. Labour Ministers often used to say that Labour Members from Birmingham gave them a harder time than Conservative Members. Indeed, Conservative Members also said that Conservative Members from Birmingham gave them a harder time than the Socialists. We all spoke for Birmingham.
  On behalf of the city of Birmingham, I resent some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ladywood. In her excitement and her desire to serve her constituents, she said that we were talking about a potty little road race. It is not potty to try to bring considerable publicity and hope to one's people.
  Ms. Short: If the hon. Gentleman has the race in his constituency, he will lose his seat.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is always the easiest argument in the world to say, "Have it near you." For 30 years as a councillor and as a Member of this place I have argued in favour of issues which I believed were for the wider good of Birmingham. The people of Ladywood need prosperity as much as any and more than many. They need things like the Olympics—a glorious £2 million failure, but which still bought us a lot of publicity—a motor race, the convention centre, the city of Birmingham symphony orchestra or even the Birmingham royal ballet. Those things help to give people a vision of Birmingham.
  Labour colleagues of the hon. Member for Ladywood must resent the fact that time after time she mentioned the
  120
  phrases, "deeply dishonourable", "misleading" or "if the truth was told." As far as I can tell, the only good point that the hon. Member for Ladywood would make about her colleagues is that they were deeply dishonourable, but with good intent. I have never known anyone be deeply dishonourable with good intent. There is either good intent about what the city council, on behalf of the people wished to do, or there is not. It cannot be deeply dishonourable to tell the truth if it could be told or to tell people that they deliberately mislead and then try to say, "I know that they do it with the best intentions." On sober reflection, I hope that the hon. Member for Ladywood will withdraw what she said.
  If a proposal produces a vast amount of advertising, that is not fraudulent. Why do people want their names on racing cars? Why do they want to have the Barclays Football League? Why should Marlboro appear on racing cars or Kelloggs' symbols on children's television programmes? Such names subliminally and properly make people believe that that is good advertising. Advertising is not something that is handed out like lollipops on street corners or with "Kiss me Quick, Clare" hats at election time. It is all part of an overall strategy.
  The city council is not dishonourable, not even with good intent. It is honourable with the good intent of trying to round off what some of us have spent 30 years of our lives doing: making people worldwide look on Birmingham not as a narrow provincial city, but as a place with vision.
  Alderman Harry Whatton was a great Labour leader of the city of Birmingham. When he signed the £23 million contract all those years ago for the national exhibition centre, I remember telling him that we would either end up in prison or as heroes. Happily, we did not end up in prison.
  Mr. Corbett: I believe that the hon. Gentleman meant to use the word "publicity" instead of "advertising". My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) stated that the reporting of the road race by ITV through Central and by the BBC in this country and in 30 other countries round the world was not space that we could have bought even if we had wanted to.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I meant to include publicity.
  Ever since 1956, when I was elected as a councillor for the local division of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, the council has had vision. The road race is part of that continuing vision. I sympathise with people whose lives are interrupted—for example, taxi drivers who moan because they cannot get their taxis through, and people from the vegetable market who moan about the race day—but we all need a prosperous Birmingham. Business may be interrupted one day to give prosperity the next day. I hope that Birmingham Members of Parliament can look further than being eight against four. I should like to think that, for the future of our city, whatever the inconvenience, we are 12 for all.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not present to support the city council on Second Reading. He was not in the House to

  121
  speak or to vote. He was conspicuous by his absence. Judging by his speech today, one would think that the hon. Gentleman was present that day. The same applies to other Conservative Members from the city of Birmingham. It is not the cosy arrangement that one would suppose. Some hon. Members are conscious of finances. We are well aware that, during next year's local election, Conservative Members will attack the Labour-controlled city council for its record over the past six years—the longest period that Labour has been in power since the war. The council will go on for at least 10 years. Conservative Members will attack the council for whatever poll tax is set—whether it is £240 or £340. However, included in the poll tax will be a subvention for the road race.
  Underlying all our debates, our primary objection has been the way in which finances have been handled. It was never intended that ratepayers' or poll tax payers' money should be used to subsidise the road race. It was clearly and explicitly stated that that would not happen, and arrangements were made to make sure that it would not happen. I disregard debates about whether it will take three or five years to break even. Leaving aside revenue costs, we even thought that we had an arrangement for capital costs. We thought that capital costs had been so arranged that it would be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said in her press release, to spend money on roofs, gutters and eliminating black mould. We know now that that is not the case. That is our central objection.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that, this year, the race will cost ratepayers £17,000, as though, for a city with a budget of £1 billion, £17,000 does not matter. Birmingham city council is so strapped for cash that 150 disabled people have not been granted bus passes. The council was unable to find the £15,000 to fund their bus passes. That gives an idea of what a council can do with £17,000.
  Birmingham city council is not a high-spending authority. Anyone who knows Birmingham would say that it spends too little in some areas. It is £96 a head below average metropolitan districts, as was shown by last week's statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a question of priorities. We should leave aside the benefits that might accrue from the road race—the publicity and advertising—which I separate in revenue terms from the other issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, such as the NEC and the international convention centre, which are wholly different. Those issues are on different planets from the road race.
  We must consider the financial arrangements and the overall benefits to the city. I am the first to make the point that one must be careful when painting the whole picture of our urban areas. On the one hand, we want new and better investment in our great cities from the public and private sectors. That is crucial across the country. But on the other hand, the dilemma for those of us who represent the arguments of the people who are downtrodden and ignored, who get second best, who have had a bad start, who end up in rotten housing or with rotten or no jobs and who are involved in a cycle of deprivation, is that if we highlight those facts to fight for something better, we are told that we are doing our city down. We have to strike a balance.
  122
  So far, to its credit, Birmingham has never put a homeless person or family into a bed-and-breakfast hotel. Never. That is a massive plus for Birmingham city council, but the housing crisis in our city is now so great that within a couple of years—by the time that the five-star Hyatt hotel opens, with its £2 million of ratepayers' money; at the very time the international convention centre opens; and the fifth or sixth year of the road race—there will be a cardboard city in Birmingham. There is no question about that. Under the present financial arrangements we cannot cope with our housing crisis. That means that we must look at the full cost of an enterprise such as the road race.
  Dame Jill Knight rose——
  Mr. Rooker: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] No, I shall not. I was cut short with only seven minutes and had a closure motion moved on me in our previous debate on this and I am sure that it will happen again before 10 o'clock this evening. Although I have a lot to say, I shall not because there will be time later on. I simply want to make a few preliminary points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) is on one of her rare visits to our Birmingham road race debates. She is an assiduous attender of the House, but not at these debates.
  I turn first to the true overall cost. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath so robustly made was that, because of the demands that we made under section 14 of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985, our chickens are coming home to roost. But the fact is that not all the social costs of the road race are put into the accounts. The auditors, lawyers and accountants have found it convenient to include some of the pluses, such as the £600,000 worth of promotion, but they are not willing to include the social costs of the road race. I shall mention just one of those costs—delays. The cost of publicity may be something on which one cannot easily put a figure, but I understand that the sum of £600,000 has been arrived at by looking at all the references to Birmingham in the newspapers and on television and trying to put some value on them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath concedes that it must he a value judgment.
  Let us consider the cost of traffic delays. I shall use the Department of Transport's own figures because we do not build roads willy-nilly in this country: all our roads are subject to a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether they should be single, dual or have three carriageways. We also consider the cost of bridges. The Department of Transport's assessment of the cost of delays caused to what is termed a "working car"—a car containing people travelling to work—is £9·124 per hour. If we take only the periods before and after the racing weekend, and accepting that at rush-hour times most vehicles are working cars with, say, a 15-minute delay per vehicle, for 1,000 cars, the cost is £2,281.
  As the full traffic flow figures are not known for the entire circuit, I am using the traffic flow figures for the A38 from the Department of Transport. If we estimate that 1,500 cars were held up for 15 minutes, twice daily, for 20 working days between July to September, excluding the race weekend, the delay would cost, at 1988 figures, £136,860. The estimate does not include lorries. That dislocation to travel and transport in Birmingham is the

  123
  social cost of the road race. No one has bothered to put that on the other side of the account which suggests that £600,000 could be derived from promotions. That cost should be investigated.
  I am happy to accept the closure when the time comes, but I hope that I shall get the four and a half minutes left to me. I received a letter from the licensee of a brand new restaurant and bar complex in the city centre. He told me that most of his customers on the racing weekend were other licensees who were checking how many customers he had. The bar and restaurant is just outside the racing circuit on the canal, but it is close to the city on the Gas street basin.
  It is also important to consider the shift in opinion among Tories on Birmingham city council. The other day, Councillor Zissman, the deputy leader of the Tory group, spoke of the
  "spite, narrow-mindedness and obvious prejudice"
  of my hon. Friends the Members for Ladywood, for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and myself. Is this the same Councillor Zissman who said on 14 September that there was
  "great concern over the way the accounts were worked out"?
  He also said that he wanted to end the subsidisation of the event by ratepayers and he questioned the financial basis of the race.
  Those are the very points that have been made by my hon. Friends and myself since the end of 1988 when we found out how the accounts were being set out—because of a change in the interpretation of the preamble to the 1985 Act rather than a section of it. We realised that creative accounting was afoot. Conservative Members should ask themselves questions about their friends on Birmingham city council. It is crucial that the full cost is investigated.
  I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) must do his bit to shut me up—that is his job—but before he does it is important to consider the latest annual report for Birmingham which says that the Bill
  "could pave the way for a Formula 1 Grand Prix to be held in Birmingham"
  We all know that the costs of Formula one grand prix are outside the scope of the Bill. They belong to another planet compared with the money we have spoken about. Hon. Members should be aware, however, that this year the British grand prix attracted 500,000 people over three days. There were 1,000 helicopter movements in and out of the circuit and 25 acres of hospitality tents. Is someone suggesting that the circuit round the inner city of Birmingham is a precursor for a grand prix? The figures that I have just given show that that is absolutely crazy. Such a claim is all part of the hype to try to sell a dud product. It is a dud product, because it is sucking up £600,000 of ratepayers' money. The money could be used to repair school playgrounds and to replace the bus passes given to disabled people. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath shares my belief that those passes should not have been removed. The money could be spent on a host of worthwhile activities.
  The race should be made to pay for itself—that was the promise given to our fellow citizens of Birmingham. If such arrangements could be made, I would support the race——
  Mr. Denis Howell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Qustion put, That the question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 35.

  Division No. 404]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Amess, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Irvine, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Jack, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Janman, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Boyes, Roland

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brazier, Julian

  Knapman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Knox, David

  Burns, Simon

  Latham, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lightbown, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lilley, Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lord, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Colvin, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Mans, Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Cormack, Patrick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Couchman, James

  Michael, Alun

  Cox, Tom

  Mills, Iain

  Cran, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Moate, Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Neubert, Michael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Eggar, Tim

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Pawsey, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Forth, Eric

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Freeman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gale, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Gardiner, George

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Shersby, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Snape, Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Speller, Tony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Stern, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Harris, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hind, Kenneth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howard, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Thorne, Neil

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Trippier, David

  125

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wheeler, John

  Mr Andrew Hargreaves and Mr. David Gilroy-Bevan.

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Jerry

  NOES

  Callaghan, Jim

  Morley, Elliot

  Clay, Bob

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Nellist, Dave

  Dixon, Don

  Patchett, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Eastham, Ken

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Flynn, Paul

  Redmond, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Haynes, Frank

  Short, Clare

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Vaz, Keith

  Lamond, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Marek, Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 26.

  Division No. 405]

  [10.11 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hardy, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Home Robertson, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Cox, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Janman, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dixon, Don

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  126

  Knapman, Roger

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Latham, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Meale, Alan

  Thorne, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trippier, David

  Moate, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waller, Gary

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Watts, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wheeler, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wood, Timothy

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Patnick, Irvine

  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves and Mr. David Gilroy-Bevan.

  Pawsey, James

  Pendry, Tom

  NOES

  Callaghan, Jim

  Nellist, Dave

  Clay, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Eastham, Ken

  Redmond, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hinchliffe, David

  Short, Clare

  Illsley, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Marek, Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morley, Elliot

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Question agreed to.
  Ordered,
  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.
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
  Ordered,
  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.
  Ordered,
  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.
  Ordered,
  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.
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Environment
  10.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8030/89 on a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 and 9785/86 on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (1987–1992); supports the Government's view that the proposal for a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network provides the most appropriate means of enhancing a sound data base to inform and support Community environmental policy; and approves in general the guidelines for the Community's Fourth Environmental Action Programme.
  [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 9182/88 on public access to information on the environment and 8882/89 on environment and natural resource information collection.]
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss three important aspects of community legislation: first, the proposal to establish a European environment agency; secondly, the fourth environmental action programme; thirdly, public access to information on the environment. I shall address each of the issues in turn. I start by setting out—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I ask hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall start by setting out the background to the proposed European environment agency. The president of the Commission, Mr. Delors, in a speech to the European Parliament in January, spoke of the need to set up a European environmental measurement and verification system
  "to inform and support Community environmental policy."
  The argument is that such a system on a European scale to monitor environmental quality and trends does not now exist. At present there is no guarantee that the results of environmental monitoring are comparable Communitywide. In response to this need, the Commission has drawn up a regulation to establish a European environment agency to act as a co-ordinating point, bringing together environmental information from existing national and regional networks for the use of the Commission and of member states.
  There is widespread agreement throughout the Community that the establishment of such an agency would be highly desirable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment welcomed the initiative in principle at the September meeting of the Environment Council. The creation of an independent body to enhance a sound environmental database will bring substantial benefits. Not only will it provide a firmer base for developing Community environmental policy, but it should remove many arguments about facts and figures from political dispute. In the United Kingdom our environmental monitoring arrangements are well established and comprehensive. For example, the national survey of air pollution was set up in 1961 and has registered a significant decrease in smoke and sulphur
  130
  dioxide concentration in the past 30 years. The setting up of the agency would encourage the development of systems to provide comparable information in other Community countries so that the overall picture becomes clearer.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the new agency will have the power to require member states or firms or bodies within member states to provide the information that it requires?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It will not have coercive powers. It will operate on a voluntary basis, but I shall come on to that later in my remarks.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Surely that is not so, as that is our Government's position in relation to negotiating exactly what powers the agency should have and it has not yet been decided whether there should be powers of compulsion to provide the information.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The draft regulations make it clear that it will not have those coercive powers. There is also consensus among member states that it should not have such powers.
  The regulation is now the subject of negotiations in Brussels. Explanatory memoranda have been submitted to the House summarising the present position and last Wednesday my officials gave evidence on the agency proposals to the Select Committee on the Environment, the report of which was tabled today.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Where does the Minister expect the agency to be located, and what will be the Government's recommendations in that respect?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall come to that, but the short answer is that we hope that it will be located in Britain.
  I wish to say a little about the negotiations and the points still to be resolved, one of which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). They also concern the precise remit for the agency, its status and structure, the arrangements for establishing and running the underlying information network, and the possible role of non-Community countries.
  First, we think that the work of the agency should be confined to assembling, co-ordinating and analysing data to provide an authoritative source of environmental information for the Community. Our firm view is that the agency should not have an interventionist role such as enforcement, nor should it have the right to initiate policy. Such responsibilities rest with national Governments and the European Commission under treaty powers. It would be quite wrong to delegate such functions to a third party such as the agency. Moreover, we see the benefits of the agency essentially lying in its neutrality and independence as a highly regarded professional body which will be open for use by the Commission, by national Governments and by the public.
  It should nevertheless be stressed that there are other existing highly reputable international organisations involved with assembling and analysing data. I am thinking particularly of the United Nations Environment Programme and Community bodies such as the statistical office and the joint research centre. There is a clear requirement that the agency should not duplicate the work of such organisations but should draw on their expertise and experience.

  131
  It is proposed that the agency should be a small organisation comprising about 20 professional staff headed by an executive director with a management board comprising delegates from each member state and from the Commission, assisted by a scientific committee to steer the work of the agency. We welcome the proposal that the agency should be a small body and I am sure that hon. Members would agree that we should not wish to create any major extension to Community bureaucracy. It is notable that the restriction on size is due in a large extent to Britain's having pressed the idea when the agency was first mooted.
  Regarding the network, the regulation proposes to require member states to identify and notify to the agency within three months the main component elements of their monitoring network. That timetable assumes that suitable networks already exist in member states and merely need to be brought together. We know that that is not the case and that arrangements for collecting information vary widely. That points to a need to extend the three-month period proposed for setting up the network. Further, there should be no legal requirement to provide information. I hope that that meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). We believe that the agency will operate successfully only in an atmosphere of voluntary trust and co-operation.
  Mr. Michael Latham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I warmly welcome him to his post. Will the collection of data allow the agency to assist our agencies with matters such as the catastrophe which occurred at Rutland Water in my constituency recently, when blue-green algae resulted in the deaths of a considerable number of dogs and sheep? I am getting no sense from the National Rivers Authority or from Anglian Water about the reason why this occurred, but we need proper data and information. I expect to see the Minister about that shortly.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I confirm that the agency will pull together data in addition to analysing it in a form that is readily digestible. My hon. Friend, his constituents or any member of the public will have access to those data. It will assist my hon. Friend to obtain a clearer picture of what went wrong in Rutland, which should assist remedial action.
  It obviously makes sense for information to be drawn together for Europe as a whole, as the Community cannot be regarded as an island. Issues of transfrontier pollution are of vital importance. We believe that third countries should be invited to participate in the agency, and that initially that should be on an informal and advisory basis. Clearly, we should wish to avoid third countries directing the work of the agency without the approval of Community member states.
  Mr. Michael Morris: What communications have there been with the Council of Europe, particularly through the Council of Ministers? It seems more appropriate for the agency to be a Council of Europe initiative, rather than just an EEC initiative.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot confirm what communications have been received from the Council of
  132
  Europe, but informal approaches have been made by other European states which in the longer term wish to participate in the work of the agency.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Minister saying that the EEC environmental agency will supplement or replace the National Rivers Authority, or does he think that the NRA, under the Government appointee, Lord Crickhowell, is not up to the job? Will the agency supplement the NRA, add to it or make it work?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The agency will not supplant the work of the NRA, which is set on a firm foundation and which will, I am sure, do excellent work under its appointed chairman.
  Other member states have expressed much support for the United Kingdom position. The agency proposal is due to be discussed at the Environment Council on 28 November, and with such a high degree of consensus the French presidency hopes for political agreement on the general terms of the regulation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not only publicly welcomed the idea of the agency but has offered to host it in the United Kingdom. We believe that the United Kingdom has a strong case and that siting it here would afford opportunity for links with the many centres of excellence in this country. I am sure that the House will support our efforts to have the agency sited in this country.
  The fourth environmental action programme is the second subject to be discussed today. On 19 October 1987, the Environment Council adopted a resolution which notes and approves in general the guidelines of the fourth environmental action programme 1987–92. It also welcomes the Single European Act which introduced an environmental chapter into the treaty of Rome. The action programme represents the Commission's agenda for future environment policy and outlines its ideas for specific proposals. It is not legally binding. The member states approved its overall approach through a general resolution without commitment to any of the detailed proposals. The Commission is free to select which proposals to develop, whether they be in this programme or not.
  Agreement has already been reached on many parts of the action programme, including directives on vehicle emissions, pesticide use, reductions in pollution from large-scale coal-fired power stations, control of major accident hazards and the protection of workers. Regulations governing trade in endangered species of animals and plants and restrictions on pesticides and chlorofluorocarbons have also been adopted. The Government have played a leading role in shaping those agreements. The programme also stresses the need for improved public access to information on the environment, which the Government fully endorse. We therefore warmly welcome the fundamental principles embodied in the current draft directive on public access to environmental information, which is the third item under discussion today.
  We have long endorsed these principles at home. We have welcomed the recommendation of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution that there should be a presumption in favour of unrestricted public access to information held by pollution control authorities and we have made substantial progress in providing for that

  133
  access. The Water Act 1989, for example, provides for public registers of water pollution controls. There are registers of notices dealing with air pollution and pesticides. We recently proposed a major extension of the system of public registers under our proposals for the new systems of integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control.
  We have pursued the same goal in Brussels. During our last presidency of the Community we proposed a resolution calling for
  "unrestricted access throughout the Community to information which pollution control authorities obtain or receive by virtue of their legislative powers, with provision for secrecy only in those circumstances where a genuine case for it can be substantiated on the grounds of commercial confidentiality or national security or other appropriate grounds".
  Such access can only be good for all parties—for industry and for the public. Secrecy breeds suspicion, suspicion breed doubts, doubts breed fears, and fears help no one. Our commitment to the principles of the draft directive is unequivocal.
  As I have already made clear, the approach that we have embraced in Britain for providing access to information is based on public registers. It provides easy access to all the important information in a readily digestible form. All parties know what is involved. The administrative burden is more containable. A number of our Community partners have adopted the same approach. We are keen to ensure that it will be viewed as fully answering the spirit and the letter of the draft directive. We also believe that further work is needed to make explicit the concepts behind the text and to clarify the phraseology.
  With those provisos, we welcome the directive. We are taking an active part in working to clarify and refine the text. Our aim, which I have no doubt that the House will share, is to secure a clear and watertight directive which will ensure that there is a full, fair and workable system of public access to environmental information and that it is provided throughout the Community. I invite the House to comment on these three items of Community business and I shall do my best to respond to any points later in the debate, or afterwards if that is more appropriate.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: The issues before us have not been finally resolved in Europe. Some of the decisions to which the Minister referred are not final decisions but cases being argued by the Government in Europe, no doubt with the support of some other member countries.
  I should like to speak mainly about the European environment agency, the fourth environmental action programme and public access to environmental information. The motion calls for the House to note the EC documents on the establishment of a European environment agency and a European environment monitoring and information network. We have before us the draft regulations for the establishment of a Eurowide agency and the proposals listing the sort of environmental action programme issues that would be the subject of inquiry by the agency and network.
  Public access to environmental information is important. The Government are going part of the way towards satisfying the Opposition's demands. The latest Community proposals are pretty comprehensive. They originate from the Commission's statement to the European Parliament on 16 January 1989, as the Minister
  134
  said. The Labour party strongly supports the establishment of this kind of information collection and research agency and verification system to ensure that individual European countries have their records, claims and statistics about the environment verified.
  As usual, Her Majesty's Government have given only a half-hearted welcome to the measure. They claim to welcome the proposals. They say that they accept that such a European environmental monitoring network should be established, but they do not want it to be constituted in such a way as to make it really effective. Indeed, they have admitted as much tonight. As usual, the Government
  "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
  And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer".
  They are adopting their usual tactic of trying to slow down the agency's implementation and insisting on restricting its functioning, so preventing an effective agency from being established.
  They do not want the agency to have power to require member countries to provide information. What would be the point of such a body? The Government believe that the agency's mandate should be confined to collecting and co-ordinating statistical data. They do not want it to undertake any enforcement role or to have the right to initiate policy.
  The Labour party does not want the agency to usurp the powers of the Commission or of sovereign Parliaments in Europe. But the right to propound or advocate policy initiatives would not necessarily do that. The right of inquiry and the right to require member states to provide information would not do that. The agency cannot function effectively if it cannot require those involved to provide information and give evidence. Once established, the agency must have power to force member states to give evidence and permit inquiry into records and institutions.
  The Government claim that co-operation and willing participation should be the way forward. We do not believe that the Government would co-operate in exposing their own polluting record. It is not surprising that they are unwilling to establish an agency with legal powers to take action or require action to be initiated. In view of the Government's record—on rewriting environment statistics and avoiding EEC directives and initiatives on the environment—they see this agency as another means by which their appalling record would be exposed.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Considering that 18 months ago the hon. Gentleman and his party would have denounced this proposal from the Commission as a gross piece of interference in British policy, but are now pretending to be pro-European and are welcoming this proposal, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why we should listen to the pompous lecture that he is now giving, when the Government have an excellent record on proposing green and anti-pollution measures?
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman does not have to listen. He can go home if he does not want to hear common sense. There is no point in establishing an agency that does not have power to carry out its responsibilities, and that means effectively monitoring and controlling.
  A strong agency would expose, for example, Her Majesty's Government's refusal to set a date for implementing the EEC directive on bathing beaches. Perhaps the Minister will give details of the real condition

  135
  of our drinking water and beaches. People living near the beaches know the state they are in. They are polluted along the length of our coastline.
  Polluting private water companies have been exempted by the Government from prosecution. That would be an ideal subject for the agency to investigate. No wonder the Government want to limit its scope and power.
  What we are discussing does not have much to do with the Common Market, for we are talking of a Europewide agency that would cover all European countries wishing to co-operate in the provision of environmental statistics. This has nothing to do with whether one is pro or anti-EEC.
  Is it possible that Her Majesty's Government would wish to co-operate freely in the collection of statistics and information about nitrate fertiliser pollution, the overuse of harmful pesticides and the effect of that on drinking water and on polluting our rivers and coastal waterways? That would make a very good subject for a European agency inquiry.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that the hon. Gentleman said that in these issues he is not pro or anti the Community and therefore he is trying desperately to be fair, will he acknowledge that this country is by no means behind in terms of chasing European standards for environmental cleanliness? Will he also acknowledge that the world waterskiing championships in Barcelona were cancelled because the skiers did not want to ski on raw sewage? That would not have happened if the championships had been held off our shores.
  Mr. Roberts: At times, the Government are successful at cobbling something together with other polluting nations such as Spain and France which are not famous for their concern for the environment. Other countries are at fault as well as Britain. However, Britain does not have a particularly good record. We are being prosecuted by the Community because of our drinking water and we are in breach of the Community directive on bathing beaches. Only Britain amoing the western European countries has exempted private water companies from prosecution for pollution because of the Government's desire to make water a successful flotation.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Britain's record is one of the best in Europe? He is implying that Britain is competing for the bottom place.
  Mr. Roberts: We are one of the worst countries in Europe in this respect. We are known as the dirty man of Europe.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): How many infraction proceedings for breaches of environmental directives have been brought against this country in the European Court of Justice?
  Mr. Roberts: I would love to tell the House, but I do not know. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us. We are the only country that refuses to join the 30 per cent. club of countries that are supposed to be reducing sulphur emissions. We are the only country to wage a major campaign against the catalytic converter, claiming that the lean-burn engine would solve the problems. The Secretary
  136
  of State has only assumed his new position because of the chaos caused by his predecessor in relation to our record on the environment and the EC. The facts were altered under the previous Secretary of State and we were pilloried continually and rightly for failing to take the necessary action required by the EC, not just in terms of the directives, but in all the discussions. In the Council of Ministers and elsewhere in Europe, Britain has been fighting a rearguard action to slow progress down. We did that with the catalytic converters and many other things.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend need not take too much notice of the Secretary of State for the Environment. He recently visited Bradford and poured praise on the Tory clique there. The Tory council in Bradford is about to embark on a major breach of the green belt in Bradford—which is already far too small. That is the sort of action that this supposedly green Secretary of State supports.
  Mr. Roberts: I can understand the Secretary of State wanting an agency that does not have any powers to compel evidence or information to be provided, particularly as that would show up the Government's record on the environment. Our drinking water and the pollution of our rivers and coastal waters by nitrates and fertilisers would be an ideal subject for an agency inquiry. However, the Government would not want their record on those issues exposed.
  If the system was voluntary, the Government would not co-operate with such an inquiry or provide the accurate information required. Would they co-operate in a statistical inquiry into the pollution of the atmosphere unless they were forced to? The Minister was seeking praise for the Government's record. As I said earlier, the Government refuse to join the 30 per cent. group of countries that want to reduce sulphur emissions. Unlike Germany, which is retro-fitting nearly all its fossil fuel power stations, this country is retro-fitting only one before the next general election and the retro-fitting of Fiddler's Ferry power station has been cancelled.
  Of course, a Euro agency investigating the Government's real record on CFCs—not the one covered by their publicity statements—and on the ozone layer would be embarrassing to the Government, as would their appalling and abysmal record of energy and transport policies, which will continue to increase carbon dioxide emissions until at least the year 2000. The United Kingdom contributes 10 per cent. of the world's total production of CFCs—a massive amount. The Prime Minister hosted a conference at which she made a speech about the problem and then said that the free market should deal with it. She and the Government still refuse to ban CFCs in aerosols.
  By having an effective ban on aerosols, the Government would meet their obligations as outlined by the Montreal agreement. Even if Britain reduced the present use of CFCs by 90 per cent., we would still use more CFCs than India does. ICI is the world's second largest producer of CFCs and the largest producer in Europe. Britain produces three times more CFCs than India and China together. Last year, the United Kingdom exported CFCs to 117 countries, 80 of which have not signed the Montreal agreement. The United Kingdom is the largest exporter of CFCs in Europe.

  137
  We are reducing the use of CFCs in this country by 50 per cent. but production by only 35 per cent., and are selling the difference to developing countries as though they have a different ozone layer. The Government would not want their record on glabal warming adequately to be exposed; nor do they wish to provide information. Because of their energy and transport policies, the Government will remain one of the main contributors to the production of greenhouse gases, despite their lip service to the problem in the Netherlands. CEGB energy projections given to the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy were that, in the year 2005, carbon dioxide production in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales will be up to 26 per cent. greater than in 1987.
  The biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions is power stations. The second biggest source is transport. Under this Government, vehicle traffic miles will increase by 83 per cent. to 142 per cent. by the year 2025. The Open university calculates that carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 60 million to 130 million tonnes, on top of the 98 million tonnes now being emitted from road traffic. They are the Government's policies and their own projections, yet they pay lip service to doing something about the greenhouse effect. The truth is that they do not want their record on this issue to be adequately investigated by a European environmental agency.
  Do the Government really want their record on this save-the-world issue to be the subject of EEC agency scrutiny? Of course not. They will avoid that at any cost. Why do they not want non-EEC European countries to be involved in such an agency? To exclude, perhaps, the environmentally conscious and concerned Scandinavian countries. If Norway, Sweden and Denmark were involved and, perhaps, Austria and other countries, we could never muster the anti-environmental majority that we sometimes manage to cobble together in the EEC. The British Government object also to identifying and notifying to the agency within three months of its establishment the main elements in our national environmental monitoring networks. Surely we do not need more than three months just to tell the agency what we already have. It is a delaying tactic by the Government.
  The Government ask how confidentiality would be dealt with. That is another red herring. It would be dealt with in the same way as it is dealt with in similar institutions and organisations. No claim for commercial confidentiality should be allowed to justify a refusal to provide the truth about industries' polluting activities.
  What is required is the establishment of a European environmental agency, but beyond the boundaries of the EEC, and a monitoring and information network. However, that will be effective only in the context of a British environmental protection agency. Indeed, that should be a keystone of any green Bill that the Government introduce and is the answer to those who say that power would move away from Britain with the establishment of a European agency. We need a really powerful British protection agency, with powers to enforce pollution control and to bring together control of land, water and air pollution. The principle of integrated pollution control should be established—I hope that it will be—in the Government's green Bill.
  An environmental protection agency should be established and given real powers to criticise and prosecute industry—private and public—local authorities, central Government institutions and Ministries. It should he truly
  138
  independent of Government and take over the National Rivers Authority and other inspectorates, such as Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It should have adequate staffing and resources. A Ministry of Environmental Protection should be established, with its own inspectorate and establishment. A Labour Government would carry all those suggestions into law.
  The public have a right to know. Access to information is fundamental to environment protection. While industry can keep secret its discharges, waste products and processes, it will continue to be, at best, a source of suspicion. The Environmental Protection Agency that has been established in the United States of America is linked with a Community Right To Know Act. That should form a blueprint for the type of legislation that is required in this country and in Europe. Such legislation would be vital for the satisfactory working of an EPA. It would also aid the work of the Department of the Environment. The United States right-to-know legislation calls for access to information on the amount of raw material entering a works, the products, the amount of waste and the type of waste treatment or disposal route. Under a Labour Government, industry would not—it should not now—be allowed to use commercial confidentiality to deny freedom of access to information about discharges into the environment.
  When the Secretary of State was given his present job, we issued a 10-point challenge to see whether the Government were serious about their attitude to the environment and to the fourth Community environmental action programme. We wanted to know whether policies really had changed since the former Secretary of State was sent off to the Department of Trade and Industry. We asked the present Secretary of State to reverse the exemptions from prosecution for causing pollution that have been given to private water companies and to set dates when Britain will comply with EEC directives on bathing beaches and drinking water standards. The Department of the Environment, under the new Secretary of State, has refused to do so. To help reduce global warming, we wanted the Secretary of State to launch a programme of energy conservation and to make available Government grants. The former Secretary of State for Energy cut the previous programme. A new programme still has not been launched and there has been no reversal of policy.
  We called on the Government to join the club of European countries that are committed to reducing sulphur emissions by 30 per cent. to prevent acid rain, but this Secretary of State takes the same attitude as the previous one. We asked the Government to reverse the decision on the Rose theatre site and to make it a scheduled ancient monument, but this Secretary of State is as concerned about our heritage as the previous one was. We asked this Secretary of State to establish, in co-operation with local government, a programme to recover CFCs already banked in the environment in disused fridges, but the Department has refused to do so. We said that this Secretary of State should abandon the proposals of the previous Secretary of State to privatise waste disposal. However, the Government still intend to establish arm's-length companies to run waste disposal services and to privatise waste disposal. They intend to put the control of monitoring toxic waste into the market, where the profit motive will be more important than concern for the environment.

  139
  We asked this Secretary of State to restrict imports of toxic waste into Britain, but he has refused to do so. We asked the Secretary of State to bring forward a comprehensive dog registration scheme; he refuses to do so. We have asked him to support the speedy implementation of the three-way catalytic converter into all types of British vehicle, accepting the 1991 date for small vehicles that was proposed by Europe, but he refuses to do so. We asked the Secretary of State to abandon Nick Ridley's—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order."] Conservative Members seem to want to be here long into the night. We asked him to abandon the decision of the former Secretary of State to dismantle the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. On all counts the Government have been found wanting.
  The Secretary of State has done hardly anything since he took over the job. The EC environmental action programme will expose that failure, especially if the agency is given the power to require evidence.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Government's support for environmental improvements is amply demonstrated by the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He takes such issues seriously, and this is an important debate. How sad it is that the shadow Secretary of State could not be bothered to attend to hear what the House had to say.
  The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), for some reason which is no doubt obvious to other hon. Members, gave way until he gave way to my right hon. Friend who asked him a pertinent question. He asked how many prosecutions there had been against the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know the answer. This debate is about European statistics, but the hon. Gentleman has not collected any. I shall give the answer. Between 1983 and 1989, there were no prosecutions against the United Kingdom Government by the European Court, in comparison with 64 prosecutions against other European Community countries. That is the mark of our Government's sincerity in comparison with others.
  It is true that action has been taken against the United Kingdom on water standards, but, in common with other hon. Friends, I find it curious that no action has been taken against other member states. When the Select Committee on the Environment visited Italy during its consideration of the problems of contaminated land and toxic waste, the local authorities in Milan told us that all the sewage from Milan and the surrounding suburbs is discharged straight into the River Po and out into the Adriatic. What action has been taken against the Italian Government? None. It is no coincidence that the European environmental Commissioner happens to be an Italian.
  This is an important matter. That is why the Select Committee on the Environment thought it right to consider the issue to try to come up with a report for the House in time for this debate. That report is ready, and I shall refer to its various recommendations.
  It is right that our Government should welcome the creation of the European Environment Agency. They did not do so half-heartedly, as the hon. Member for Bootle
  140
  suggested. Civil servants giving evidence to the Select Committee told us that the Government warmly welcomed the proposal. It is wecome because one cannot develop environmental policy without the reliable statistics necessary to establish what corrective action should be taken and what directives should be issued by the Commission. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I believe that it is natural for environmental policy to be considered at European level, precisely because so much pollution is transboundary that it can be dealt with only through international co-operation.
  It would be helpful to the House if we considered the recommendations—they were unanimous—of the Select Committee. The Committee considered the powers of the agency. I shall quote those recommendations verbatim, so that no misinterpretation is possible. The Select Committee said:
  "We agree with the Department of the Environment that the proposed Agency should not be intrusive of Member States whether by way of inspection, enforcement of policy making. We would support any proposal to ensure that its duties are carefully defined and do not go beyond acting in an advisory capacity. In view of its proposed functions, we consider that its full title—with its inevitable reminders of the United States Environmental Protection Agency—is misleading; and feel that it would be more appropriate to limit the name".
  If the agency were to have executive powers, it would involve the creation of a huge bureaucracy which would have to draw together the different experiences and abilities of member states. That may be possible in the dim and distant future, but it is not practical if we are to get the agency going now.
  The second Select Committee recommendation referred to the Corine programme and the avoidance of duplication and overlapping. There are other agencies collecting statistics—the European Environmental Statistics Office, the United Nations organisation to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred and others—and it is important to ensure that statistics are not duplicated. I questioned civil servants on that point but I did not receive a satisfactory answer. When I asked about the European Environmental Statistics Office, Mr. MacCormack, on behalf of the Department, said:
  "We have got one of those already."
  I asked:
  "What is the difference between the two?"
  He replied:
  "The Statistical Office, in as far as it looks at environmental statistics, for example, is very much concerned with numbers and collecting numbers and not with the analysis of such numbers, so that it is the provision of pure statistics; whereas the Agency is seen as more than that. It is seen as dealing with scientific environmental information and going further than just pure statistics."
  In that case, why cannot the remit of the European Environmental Statistics Office be widened so that it collects the numbers and analyses them as well? Why do we have to have two such bodies? Cannot some saving be made in trying to bring the statistics together?
  Thirdly, the Select Committee felt that at present the agency should be limited to members of the Community in order to get it off the ground. In due course it will be sensible to bring in other states within Europe—not just western Europe, but eastern Europe and beyond. As I have already said, many of the issues of transboundary pollution go far wider than just EEC member states.

  141
  However, in practical terms it seems sensible to start with a proposal that can get off the ground rather than one that would fall at the first fence.
  Among the issues that have to be tackled are the financial and voting rights of non-EEC Governments. One of the Select Committee's recommendations is that when the negotiations take place, procedures should be developed so that in due course non-member states that wish to take part can do so on proper terms.
  There was reference earlier to the involvement of non-governmental organisations—NGOs. I do not think that it would be right to lose the benefit of the immense experience and statistical base that many of those organisations have, whether they are European bodies collecting statistics for a particular industry or organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Unlike the French presidency, the Select Committee did not feel that it was appropriate for NGOs to be represented on the management board because it would be difficult to determine which NGOs should be represented, how they should be appointed and so on. However, we would wish to see their experience drawn on to the maximum extent through co-operation.
  Also, there is the question of location. The Select Committee strongly supported the Government's stance on wishing to see the agency located in the United Kingdom. We have tremendous expertise. The British Antarctic Survey is just one source of that expertise. It would be appropriate to seek to have the agency located in the United Kingdom in conjunction with one of the distinguished academic bodies located here already.
  One domestic point involves the staffing of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Department of the Environment. The Committee recognised that the creation of this agency would not have a huge impact on such staffing, but clearly it would have some. When I questioned civil servants on this matter, I did not receive a clear answer about whether there would be an appropriate increase in staffing levels to deal with the work involved. I hope that this point will be taken on board in due course.
  The Select Committee has produced this report, which I hope will be helpful to the Government and the House. This is a most useful debate to take place at this time, with the consideration of what to do being due on 28 November which is not far away. I commend the report to the House.
  11.10 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to say one or two things, none of them in agreement with the speeches that I have heard.
  The Government have been telling us that they are in favour of this European environment agency, and would even like its headquarters to be in some green glade somewhere in the United Kingdom. All that sounds very good, but it is not as good as it sounds because we are not at all happy about the Government's attitude to the scope and powers of the proposed agency.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will not be surprised to learn that the position that I am about to adopt is different from his. The Prime Minister's much-advertised concern about the environment was symbolised by that zonker—if that is the proper word—of a headline which appeared in the Evening Standard last
  142
  week, "Thatcher's plan to save the world". If the Prime Minister is as determined about these matters as she says she is—I am not questioning that—we would have expected a much more positive reaction to the proposal than we have seen.
  This proposal is for a network to deal with atmospheric emissions and quality, water resources and their quality, the marine environment. soil erosion and pollution and nature conservancy, which includes land use.
  I have no doubt—it seems to be agreed across the House—that there is a good case for a common statistical unit on pollution. As the Minister said, monitoring procedures vary across the Community, so it is difficult to obtain proper comparisons. Therefore, it would be good to do so. For example, diesel emissions from vehicles are measured differently; some countries measure it by smoke density and others by what are called suspended particulates. In case any hon. Member wishes to interrupt to ask me what a suspended particulate is, I do not know.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: It is like a Conservative.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I thought that it was like a ministerial statement. The basic point is that there are different systems of measurement and since we are all affected by the pollution, we need common systems. A European monitoring and information network is a good idea.
  As the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said, such a system can be effective only if there is a compulsion element. If not, there is simply a patchwork of information and anything, in any country, which is embarrassing will be concealed, held back and will not be voluntarily and happily provided. I do not see the sense of that.
  The supplementary explanatory memorandum that the Government have kindly made available says:
  "Arrangements for establishing and running the Network should be based on the principle of free co-operation".
  Polluters do not want free co-operation, but to get on with polluting, or they would not be doing it in the first place. It is absurd to suggest that an agency of this sort can be established on that basis.
  As the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out two or three times—rightly so—we are talking about a body that has not been established but is about to be discussed and decided on, and about what the Government's attitude to it should be. The Government should adopt the attitude that the agency has some future role in directing environmental matters in a supranational way. It is only sensible that an agency should be able not only to collect statistics but to interpret them and recommend courses of action. It would seem reasonable to leave room for the agency to grow into a regulatory body, if circumstances require. I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Bootle, who wanted a British agency, independent of Government, to regulate pollution. So what is the argument against a European agency? There is no logical argument.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The EEC has too much power already.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman should realise——
  Mr. Skinner: It will be worse when the Germans get together.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman should leave behind his characteristically old-fashioned views——
  Mr. Skinner indicated dissent.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to repeat what I said?
  Mr. Skinner: I am listening carefully.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman should realise that such regulation need not and should not be bureaucratic—it should be controlled by the European Parliament in a proper democratic way.
  The Government have approached this too narrowly; worse, they are not taking advantage of a tremendous opportunity for European co-operation to control pollution supranationally. That is what this country should argue for.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Michael Morris: I very much welcome this concept. There is certainly a need to pull together data from across Europe. Those of us who have been appointed to the Council of Europe know that one of the missing elements at present is a common databank and the sharing of experience of environmental matters.
  The Minister was right to say that there is a wealth of experience in this country. We have heard about the British Antarctic Survey. This country was also in the vanguard of the campaign to save the whale. It is therefore rather churlish of Opposition Members to denigrate the stance adopted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has consistently suggested ways forward to help to protect the environment, not just in Europe but across the world.
  I will certainly support my hon. Friend the Minister's stance. The Commission should be the starting point. Broadcasting was dealt with first by the Commission, but the Council of Europe ended up as the body which provided the transfrontier broadcasting initiative. The 12 member countries of the EEC constitute too narrow a forum to deal with environmental matters—the 23 members of the Council of Europe should all be brought in and play a key role.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. This is a worthwhile start and I wish him a fair wind.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The issue that I wish to raise is to be found on page 57 of the fourth action plan and concerns remote sensing from space. This important activity would be best done by the agency, and it is inadequately organised now.
  A month ago, M. and M. Norman and Company organised in Glasgow a conference on the tropical rain forest. At the conference there was a powerful contribution from Professor Malcolm Wilkins, editor of "Plant Biology" and a distinguished plant biologist. After a great deal of consideration and the application of much knowledge, he took the view that one of the most useful things that Europe could do was to provide remote sensing facilities to countries with rain forest problems. Such facilities could also be used for all sorts of problems on our own continent.
  144
  After Professor Wilkins raised the matter, I took it up with the Government and received a reply from the Minister for Overseas Development that I wish briefly to challenge. The Minister's letter says:
  "The suggestion that satellite remote sensing could be used for these purposes has come from a number of quarters. We have investigated what can be achieved by using satellites in this area, including through discussions with the World Bank.
  Our conclusion is that satellites are a useful tool in monitoring changes in forest area, but that the results obtained are subject to a significant margin of error. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations is using satellite technology as part of their ongoing inventory of global forest resources, which is expected to be completed in the early 1990s. However, it is difficult to identify selective felling or shrubbery regrowth in forests with satellite technology."
  No one has suggested that that should be done. Satellite technology is one of the tools, not an overall answer. The letter continues:
  "Likewise, satellites cannot tell us much about the health of the forest—for example they may show apparently healthy tree tops in a forest which might, when seen on the ground, have no underbrush and no young trees. In addition, currently available civilian satellites do not provide sufficiently accurate images to detect clearance from some areas of shifting cultivation, which is widely practised in many developing countries."
  There are other ways of looking at the important question of the canopy and there is an argument for having at least one or two airships to glide over it. The Government say in the letter:
  "We will certainly be keeping abreast of developments in this field, not least through our scientific arm, the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute (ODNRI), which makes extensive use of satellite information in their land use work. We shall also be active in continuing to consider how satellite techniques and information can help in our collaborative forestry projects in developing countries …"
  If that is the situation, it is this type of agency which could get the strings together to provide the important finance and techniques, which are expensive, and it should be done on a European rather than a national basis. I am not unreasonable and I do not expect the Minister to answer off the top of his head in his winding-up speech. However, I should like his Department to look carefully at the work of the overseas development department and to find out from the considerable technical advice that is available, and especially from Professor Malcolm Wilkins and his colleagues in the department of botany in Glasgow university, whether something should be done by the agency that is to be set up.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: The knowledge of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on scientific matters is greatly respected and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to him appropriately. Perhaps we may come back from space to land and specifically to water, and to the issue that I raised in an intervention during the Minister's speech: the environmental disaster that took place in Rutland Water in my constituency when about 20 dogs—no one knows exactly how many—and 15 sheep died from chewing or eating blue-green algae at the beginning of September or the end of August. I am in favour of an environmental agency and glad to see that the Government support it because I hope that it will enable a database to be established which will bring together the scientific evidence of how such a thing can happen and prevent it from happening in the future.

  145
  The explanation given is that this resulted entirely from the interaction of the sun and nutrients in the water, but my constituents are not satisfied. They have not been given an explanation of why it happened in this year, and why only the water in that reservoir caused animal deaths. I have not had any satisfactory explanation, either from Anglian Water or from the National Rivers Authority, although I know that the authority is continuing its investigation.
  I have to say with regret to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have been disappointed in the replies that I have received from Ministers to parliamentary questions about this matter. The other day, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning used the expression "normal seasonal phenomenon". However, the explanation from Anglian Water is that this was an exceptional situation resulting from the exceptional conditions this year. If that is so, it cannot be a normal seasonal phenomenom. They cannot both be right. Such points need clarifying.
  I have pressed Anglian Water to pay compensation to the people who have lost animals, and also to the companies that have lost business because of the closure of the reservoir. I regret that that has been rejected. I want the agency to be able to look into, and to draw together, the necessary statistical information about whether this should have been foreseen. The stuff did not build up overnight. It built up over two or three weeks. I have not yet had any satisfactory explanation as to whether this could or should have been foreseen. If sufficient scientific evidence had been available, it should have been available not only on a British but a European basis, to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Minister a fair wind with setting up this agency, but I want to see it taking the opportunity, as quickly as possible, to draw together the necessary scientific information and to publish it. When I asked my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to place in the Library the information produced by Dundee university and the National Rivers Authority, I am sorry to say that he ignored that part of my question. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I expect to be supplied with that information by Ministers as quickly as possible. If I do not get it from Ministers, I expect it from the new environmental agency.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Latham: I do not expect to get it from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated clearly how damaging information about the environment is not even given to Members of Parliament by a Government who are reluctant to provide it. Now, an agency will be set up in Europe that will not have powers to require that such information to be given to it.
  Mr. Latham: I expect to be provided with the information shortly because I shall see the Minister shortly. I expect, on that occasion, to receive the information. I leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with that thought.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I welcome this EC initiative towards the creation of a European environmental agency. What is being offered is a Europewide information system, and the creation of a European standard for information collection and analysis. That is the first and necessary step towards the knowledge on which proper environmental protection action can be based. The proposal builds on, rather than replaces, existing environmental agencies, and will therefore be a co-ordination and co-operation body.
  I welcome the comments that show that the international aspect of these matters may be extended beyond the boundaries of the European Community, and the fact that the Government have stated their wish to see EFTA countries included. However, I hope that this desire will not be used merely as an excuse to delay action within the EEC. European Community agencies, once set up, should be the basis from which wider co-operation extends, rather than international agreement being sought before European Community action takes place.
  I also welcome the scope of the agency's work, on atmosphere, water and marine environment, biotopes and nature conservation. This is adequate, and allows for future comprehensive action. Article 4(4) says:
  "There will be no restrictions to publication of data or its dissemination to the public."
  That is an important safeguard, if the agency is to have a watchdog role, but it is a great pity that lack of powers to gather information detracts from this article.
  The agency must not be allowed to be a bureaucracy. It must be a functional body working because of the importance and the nature of the environmental tasks which confront the whole of Europe. We are making a small start when we compare the proposed agency with the powers of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As the agency develops, I ask the Government not to think it down. We must build on these beginnings and construct a proper Europewide organisation that is capable of tackling the immense environmental problems of the continent.
  I wish to see the creation of a Scottish environment protection agency working nationally within a European context and ensuring that Scotland's environmental needs are properly met. The proposed merger of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission should present an opportunity to create such a Scottish environment protection body, but it must be properly financed and imaginatively organised.
  I note that seven EC states are bidding to house the new European agency, with its annual budget of £3·5 billion. I ask the Government to ensure that it is based in Scotland. With our unique combination of a special environment and universities, as well as existing research institutions, a compelling case can and should be made for the siting of the agency in Scotland. Existing Scottish-based expertise can be of service to the whole of Europe.
  I am sure that the Minister will understand that his wish to see it sited somewhere in the United Kingdom is not good enough from my point of view. I wish to hear him say that the agency will go to Scotland. I commend to the Minister's attention the proposals of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on this subject and urge him to support the Scottish case. I hope that the

  147
  Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting beside him, will be urging such a course on the Government.
  If we are properly to tackle environmental protection, we require a European body that is involved fully in research, action that is based on that research and conservation that is based on a dynamic interaction with the environment. That requires a comprehensive approach that links urban and rural needs and utilises interdisciplinary scientific skills. If properly instituted environmental protection measures can create employment, it is not necessarily a negative activity. Indeed, it should not be that. The real task is to safeguard the rights of future generations. That is basically what the debate is about. That is what the agency, and other agencies that are connected with it, should do. "Protect and survive" is a slogan with real meaning in this context.
  I wish the new agency well. I hope that it will be allowed to grow equal to the environmental task that it faces. I hope also to hear from the Government that they are committed to allowing the agency to meet that challenge and carry out the task.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The excellent speech of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) perhaps summarised what the debate is about. As a Scottish Member, he wisely urged us to ensure that the European agency is located in Scotland. He argued that there should be a Scottish agency as well, which would similarly be located in Scotland. There would be lots of jobs, and everyone would be happy.
  We have had a debate in which every participant has welcomed the agency. It would be rather sad to send the report of it to Brussels, or wherever it goes, without at least one Member saying that the proposal is a load of rubbish.
  It is proposed that we set up yet another useless quango. That is strange when we have a Government who have prided themselves on the abolition of quangos. When we are dealing with the EEC, we seem to delight in the creation of more and more semi-quangos. They have no real powers and they duplicate the work that is already done by half a dozen agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) raised an important constituency issue, and one which I would have been extremely worried about. He must know, however, that the agency will not have any powers to do anything about it.
  The Opposition say that the Government's environment policies are rubbish, and some of my hon. Friends say that they are not. We all know, however, that the agency will not have any powers to do anything to overcome the problems. It is being suggested that we should have a great new body, which will have conferences, seminars and newspapers. I am sure that there are many of them, in Scotland and in Southend. They will spend a great deal of money and create lots of jobs and the whole thing will be a total waste of time and money.
  At a time when the average family in Britain is paying £3 a week as a net contribution to the EEC and more than £13 extra for food simply because of the EEC, we should
  148
  have a Conservative Government who question whether there is any point in these foolish quangos being established as they are established in Europe.
  As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will be aware, we have made constitutional progress too. So far as I am aware, for the first time the European Parliament will be nominating two members to the new body, and the Government are required to appoint a representative who will be in a co-operative frame of mind as regards co-operation between the agency and member states. Apart from the fact that I am unlikely to be considered for that, I think that it is quite outrageous for Euro-legislation to require states to appoint people with particular points of view and particular attitudes. Yet it is here, in article 6.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Does not the hon. Gentleman admit that the Government appoint people with particular points of view to boards?
  Mr. Taylor: The Government are entitled to do what they want within the law because they are a democratically elected Government. That is what democracy is all about. But we do not have a law requiring them to appoint people of a particular character. That seems to be a rather strange new initiative, but we shall probably see a lot more of it.
  We are all delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the Front Bench, because his honesty and integrity would be a credit to any Government of any party. First, will he tell us what the cost will be? The CORINE programme was set up in 1985. We were told it was to be a closely safeguarded organisation which would spend only a limited amount of money. That money was £3 million. We know that it has already spent £4 million and now it appears that it is trying to spend £8 million.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does it fit the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory that the only mention of money in the document is tucked away at the back and in French?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will find it in English as well, if he turns to page 16, but that is irrelevant.
  Secondly, can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me how duplication will be stopped. The Select Committee did a splendid job saying that it is a shame to have lots of organisations doing the same thing, but the Minister must know that no organisation will stop what it is doing. The OECD will not stop doing what it is doing so splendidly; the United Nations environmental centre will not stop its excellent work, nor will the joint research centre. There will be yet another body holding more conferences and collecting more information.
  Thirdly, what on earth is the point of establishing a harmless body to do work which is already being done by several organisations? It is a body without any powers. As the Minister said, it will have no right to tell Britain, Greece, Portugal, Sweden or France or any country within or outwith the EEC what to do. That seems quite crazy.
  Finally, the agency is meant to advise us on European environmental policy. That is the height of hypocrisy. We know that European environmental policy consists of being very tough on any individual or organisation that creates pollution except farmers. Although we know that agriculture is one of the greatest polluters in Europe, farmers seem to be totally exempt from restrictions and penalties. In regard to nitrates, for example, although the

  149
  Single European Act states clearly that the polluter should pay, the Government are about to produce legislation to offer compensation to the agricultural bodies for not creating so much pollution.
  Although everyone will be happy to see the Common Market creating another body that will not cause too much trouble but will cost much money, we should occasionally think about ratepayers in places such as Southend, whose water rates are being increased substantially—[Interruption] Opposition Members should not laugh, because poor and simple people, some rich and wise people and ordinary people will have to pay much more this year to sort out the serious problem of pollution, which is created solely by the activities of agriculture and the EEC.
  We should tear up this document and scrap this proposal, because the Government must be well aware that no good will come from the EEC, except for the organisers of conferences, hotel owners and the publishers of newspapers. We all know that it is a silly, worthless proposal, which is why it is daft for hon. Members to say that the best solution is for the agency to be located in Scotland, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This has been a brief debate, but hon. Members have expressed a range of opinions. I shall try to answer most of the questions asked.
  I listened in vain to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) to hear anything of relevance to the three items under consideration. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he wants an interventionist agency that could compel witnesses and demand information from British organisations, presumably under threat of penalty. I know that the labour party has done a U-turn on Europe and that it wants enthusiastically to display its European credentials, but until this evening I did not know that that entailed a major extension of Commission powers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman cleared his speech with his shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, who I regret is not present this evening.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I did not suggest massive extension of Commission powers. There is no point in having a European agency—we believe that the Scandinavian countries and others should be involved—if it does not have the power to require evidence or to obtain the information necessary for it to do its job. If it is a voluntary agency, it will not work. Either it should not be set up or it should be given the powers necessary for it to be effective.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We heard the hon. Gentleman say that the new agency should be able to compel the Government and British organisations to supply data. If it is to be able to compel the supply of information, it must be able to apply sanctions and penalties if that information is not forthcoming. I should like to hear what penalties the hon. Gentleman has in mind, because that would represent a major extension of Commission competence into the workings of British Government and organisations. I hope that that fits in with the new environmentally friendly policy review recently published by the Labour party. I further hope that the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment will not be surprised when he reads the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the Official Report tomorrow.
  150
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for introducing into the debate the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. I was pleased to have the general support of the Committee, in particular for resisting an enforcement role for the proposed agency. I listened carefully to his other remarks on the role of non-governmental organisations, which will be taken into account in the negotiations and discussions in Brussels that must be undertaken before the regulation is put into its final form.
  I listened, too, to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said about non-member states. Recent developments in eastern Europe might be relevant. We could be moving towards an eventual wider association of nation states in Europe. It is therefore particularly important that we welcome observer status for these countries. That is specifically included in the draft regulation. The proposal has the general support of not only the Government but other Community members.
  We have already received bids for the agency's location from centres of excellence in various parts of the United Kingdom. It is far too early to distinguish between them or to put forward the claims of one above another. The bids show the range and depth of excellence in scientific research on environmental matters that already exist in the United Kingdom. This should strengthen Britain's bid to have the agency located here.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) rightly welcomed the need for comparable data. I reject his illiberal suggestion that the agency should have coercive or enforcement powers. In this, the hon. Gentleman appeared to agree with the Labour party. We do not see the need for compulsion either in theory or in practice. The new agency will draw on existing data, and to the extent that data do not exist, it is up to the agency to negotiate contracts to assemble and assess information.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that criminals should volunteer information about their crimes to the police?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The British Government have a record of making publicly available a huge range of data about the environment. We have nothing to hide. We have recently proposed a further extension of data that will be available under statute for public inspection. All this will be available to the proposed agency.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) again spoke about rain forests. We had an interesting debate on that subject on Friday and I respect the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest. He particularly asked about satellite monitoring. I shall ask my officials to ascertain the extent to which the agency will be able to draw on existing satellite monitoring techniques. Rain forests are a little wide of the agency's remit as presently envisaged, but everyone who is interested in the environment—the agency, Community organisations, national Governments and the public—has everything to gain by drawing together existing scientific knowledge.
  We have a particularly good record in assisting tropical rain forest countries to manage their forests responsibly. We know that it is usually a matter of replanting rather than burning. The harvesting of hardwoods is not in itself environmentally destructive. It all comes down to the point, as underlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime

  151
  Minister in her speech to the United Nations, that many of these countries require technology and financial help. We are actively pursuing that course.
  Much remains to be done to understand the algal infestation this summer in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I cannot give him a definitive answer, but I shall ask my officials to look into the points that he made. It concerns the agency in that it would obviously help if we could draw together the existing scientific knowledge on the subject, and I hope that that will help to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate events of last summer.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) mentioned bids from Scotland for the location of the agency. I know that Edinburgh university is interested. I can say no more at present on that subject, except that it underscores the strength that Britain can bring to bear in our bid to have the agency located somewhere in the United Kingdom.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the agency as a quango. It is not a quango and we are not setting it up. It is being established under treaty powers granted to the Commission by this House. The Commission has powers and responsibilities for the environment, given to it under the Single European Act. My hon. Friend voted against that measure, but it was passed by Parliament and he will agree that as such powers exist, it is better that they should be deployed on the firmest possible scientific base. As he said, it will not be an enforcement agency, but it will draw together what we already know about the environment so that actions taken, not only by the European Commission but by national Governments, are underpinned by the most up-to-date range of scientific information.
  152
  I stress that the setting up of the agency will help to ensure that the quality of environmental information generally available to member countries and the Commission is raised. The United Kingdom has much to offer in this respect from its long-established and experienced institutions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8030/89 on a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 and 9785/86 on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (1987–1992); supports the Government's view that the proposal for a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network provides the most appropriate means of enhancing a sound data base to inform and support Community environmental policy; and approves in general the guidelines for the Community's Fourth Environmental Action Programme.

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

  SOLVENCY (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, & c.).

  COMPANIES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  Haemophiliacs (AIDS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before I call the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that a case affecting haemophiliac AIDS victims is currently before the courts. Mr. Speaker has exercised the discretion given to him in relation to court cases which are sub judice in permiting this debate to go ahead, but I trust that hon. Members will seek to avoid as far as possible direct reference to the issues specifically before the courts.
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for exercising his discretion in that way and for allowing us to debate a matter which is of great importance, as illustrated by the fact that there are present tonight so many of my hon. Friends—I use the expression advisedly—in all parts of the House. I am also grateful for the fact that two Ministers from the Department of Health are present.
  The words "special case" are probably more overworked than any others in the political vocabulary, but tonight we are considering a group who really merit that description. Their numbers are known, their problems are tragic, and Government have a real moral responsibility for those problems. Although nobody has the means of solving them, Government can remove the financial anxiety which adds immeasurably to the acute and continuing stress of dread illness that their agent, albeit unwittingly, created.
  There are 5,000 haemophiliacs in this country; 1,200 of them, including 200 children, were infected with the HIV virus before the Health Department officially told doctors, in September 1985, to use only the heat-treated version of the blood clotting agent factor X, which had itself brought new life and hope to haemophiliacs. Of those 1,200, 163 developed full-blown AIDS, and 107 of them have already died.
  So we are dealing with a well-defined and inevitably sadly diminishing group of people. There will be no more victims, save perhaps for a few infected babies yet to be born. There will be no more victims because supplies of factor 8 are now safe. However, for these 1,200 that is small consolation because their supplies were not. Those supplies were obtained and administered through the National Health Service. No one can give back to these victims the hope of a normal life that was once theirs. No once can remove the uncertainty with which they and their families live from day to day—the uncertainty of when the bell will toll. If any group of people live in the shadow of death, they do. It is no wonder that their story has been described as the most tragic in the history of the NHS. Many of them carry the extra burden of financial hardship, or the even greater worry of not knowing how their dependants will fare after they have gone.
  Many heart-rending cases have been brought to my attention. I received a letter today stating:
  "We have been married for 24 years and watched the treatment improve from plasma to factor 8. It led us to believe that the life expectancy of a haemophiliac was near normal. Because of this we chose to have a family. We now have three grandchildren. Once we learned of my husband's HIV status,
  154
  our world was shattered. It has affected all of us very badly. We were never ashamed to tell anyone that he was a haemophiliac. Now we all suffer in silence."
  The daughter of a constituent wrote:
  "I have watched his treatment improve over the years. Imagine our horror when we were told that he had the AIDS virus."
  Another of my constituents simply said:
  "Money is nothing compared to human life but it can give a family the ability to choose how their life should go forward. Families may feel that they need to move house if hostility has been experienced in their neighbourhood. Many haemophiliacs have cars through the notability scheme—how can a family cope with suddenly being without transport? A family which has been living on State Benefit needs financial support when the husband or father is very ill and certainly when he dies. The hardest part to accept is that this should never have happened."
  Hon. Members will have seen innumerable letters like that, many of which have been circulated by the Haemophilia Society. No one who has studied this sad saga can accuse the Government of callousness or indifference. Two years ago, partly due to pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Secretary of State for Social Services announced at the Dispatch Box that £10 million was to be placed in a trust fund to help haemophiliac AIDS victims. That gesture was appreciated and many families have cause to be grateful. But, the Macfarlane Trust was not intended to provide compensation. It is a welfare fund to deal with specific needs at particular times. What these people need is proper recognition that they are the victims of the most ghastly and far-reaching of accidents.
  The victims of accidents frequently sue those whom they hold responsible, but just as frequently the moral responsibility is accepted and an out-of-court settlement is made. That is not the same as saying that culpability is accepted. Those who suffered as a result of the Piper Alpha explosion, the Clapham train crash, or more recently, the sinking of the Marchioness just down the Thames from here benefited or are likely to benefit from out-of-court settlements. The Government should act in like manner towards these haemophiliac victims. Six hundred people have already begun court action, but the courts take time, and time is what they do not have. Moreover, some people have not even been able to begin proceedings because they do not qualify for legal aid and cannot contemplate a lengthy, costly struggle.
  The problem is not unique to Britain. In other countries in which the circumstances of infection have been very similar, Governments have accepted their moral responsibility and agreed to compensate. In Canada, where there are 950 victims, the Government have opened an extraordinary assistance programme, as they call it, under which compensation is to be paid in the same manner as it is paid to victims of natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. There are compensation schemes in operation in Germany, Denmark, Norway and France. In some countries, such as New Zealand, there are already fully developed no-fault compensation schemes from which all victims of medical mishap can benefit.
  If the Government opt for an out-of-court settlement, they need not admit culpability. If the matter is dragged through the courts, it could mean sad consequences for haemophiliacs who are not infected. Although commercial pharmaceutical companies are not involved in any pending High Court case, plaintiffs and defendants have

  155
  reserved the right to call them to give evidence. It is not impossible that that could have the effect of stopping or slowing the supply of perfectly safe factor 8.
  No one has suggested that these tragic victims do not have a case. No one disputes how they were infected. No one suggests that they were in any way, as a result of personal carelessness or lifestyle, responsible for the cruel predicament in which they find themselves. Everyone expresses sympathy, but only the Minister can effectively translate that sympathy into action—and not merely by adding more money to a trust fund administering means-tested benefits. Two years ago, the Government said that compensation could not be awarded other than by the courts. The Government now say that they cannot make an out-of-court settlement because the matter is before the courts. That simply will not do.
  I often remember the lovely story about the artist painting the model. When the lady says, "I hope that you will do me justice," the artist replies "Madam, it is not justice you need—it is mercy." I am not asking for charity. I am not, even demanding justice. I am asking the Government to accept their moral responsibility and to show mercy to a group of people who, more than any other single group I can think of, manifestly deserve it. I hope that we shall have a full and good answer from the Minister, but whatever he says, unless he agrees to our request, the campaign will go on and we shall not go away. The Sunday Times will continue its thundering, and we shall continue our thundering.
  I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends present on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has done a great deal in this matter. We shall fight until we win the battle, but I hope that, as there are so many other battles to fight, we shall not need to wage this one any further after today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us the answer that we believe that he should.
  12.2 am
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for leaving time after that distinguished speech for me to make it clear that his very genuine concern is widely shared on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. In my role as an Opposition Front Bench Member specialising in this field, I have had deeply moving correspondence from people with haemophilia and HIV in all parts of Britain. It is a dossier of despair, from which I have time to quote only from the letter of a constituent of mine, who writes:
  "While the MacFarlane Trust has been of help, a long-term solution it is not. It is wrong for us to have to depend on welfare handouts when the disease was contracted by no fault of our own.
  An out-of-court settlement should be made promptly, so that I and my fellow sufferers can enjoy some sort of reasonable lifestyle before we die."
  The case for an out-of-court settlement is overwhelming. Many of the victims of this huge disaster in health care have already died. Many more know that they have little prospect of living to see a settlement in court, and they rightly insist that posthumous justice is no justice at all. Their case is self-evidently unique and in my view deserves the unique response that it has received in other countries. Opposition Members want to see a no-fault compensation
  156
  scheme and we urge the Government to recognise that the plight of people with haemophilia and HIV argues unanswerably the need for such a scheme.
  Another Thalidomide-style tragedy can and must be prevented. In that case, after years of campaigning, Distiller's finally accepted that an out-of-court settlement was unavoidable. Why cannot the Government accept that the victims of this disaster are just as deserving? They have been dealt the cruellest possible hand. They have to live not only in a genetic disorder, but with HIV as well. They are doubly stricken and in double despair as they await the outcome of this most urgent all-party plea on their behalf.
  12.4 am
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on raising this case of the most tragic human misery of these haemophiliac victims.
  I rise to speak because three of my constituents are haemophiliacs and HIV-positive as a result of using the blood product, factor 8, provided by the NHS for home treatment, and because their plight points up the weaknesses of the present compensation system, whereby negligence is the sole reason for offering compensation to victims of medical accidents, and then only after a long-drawn-out and costly process. As my hon. Friend has said, in these cases, time is the one substance in the shortest supply.
  Over the weekend I met one of the haemophiliacs, a young man, with his wife and family. He told me of the psychological change that had come over him since 1985, when he was first advised he had the virus. He described how originally he was told that he had a one in 400 chance of contracting AIDS but subsequently has learned his chances are one in two, with a 75 per cent. chance of mortality in seven to 10 years. He is a man who will probably never know the joy of seeing his children grow up, for whom the future holds nothing, whose job promotion prospects are nil.
  He is grateful for the £1,200 a year he gets from the Macfarlane Trust. It helps to pay for the extras he needs, but his worry is about his family, and who will pay for the mortgage if he is no longer able to work, or is no longer with them. He can make no provision for his family. He is precluded from taking out a life insurance policy because of the virus. In other words, if the worst happens, he fears for his home and for his wife and children—yet there is nothing he can do to help them.
  He suggested that, if the Government would underwrite a life insurance scheme, he would happily pay the premiums. It was a generous suggestion, and it would be better than nothing. But in conscience can any of us really accept that this young haemophiliac, and the others like him, who were supplied by the NHS with what they believed was a tested, pure, life-saving product only to find it contaminated with a deadly virus, should be expected to manage on means-tested Macfarlane handouts, or be asked to wait for the result of litigation, which is at least 18 months away and may go against them? And if it does, what then? Do we walk away from them, and leave them with their tragedy?
  The quality of their lives has been irreparably damaged—no-one denies that. They live with the ever-present fear of AIDS, knowing that over 100 have already died. Whatever compensation may be paid cannot restore what

  157
  they have lost, but at least we can ease their worries for their families if anything happens to them; and we can do that by setting up a compensation fund for their families now, and with it, the promise of payments for those already in need or who have contracted AIDS. That is my urgent request to the Government tonight, and I make it on both moral and humanitarian grounds.
  12.8 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has certainly done a great service to the House by raising the plight of some 1,200 haemophiliacs who have become infected with the AIDS virus as a result of treatment with infected blood products. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health, whose responsibility this subject is, has only just returned from Brussels. She particularly wanted to join the debate, because she shares with me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health a great concern about the plight of these haemophiliacs.
  My hon. Friend has described a most moving story to the House. The record should show that, in addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M McNair-Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) also in the Chamber at this late hour are my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who has made representations directly to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) who has questioned the Prime Minister on this subject, for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), and the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The level of attendance at this late hour is a sign of how seriously hon. Members take this subject.
  All hon. Members would like to express their sympathy for those who are infected and for their families. It is particularly tragic that the coagulation products that were intended to revolutionise their lives have caused so much suffering. I appreciate the tremendous mental stresses under which those affected are living. I know that the six haemophilia reference centres provide specialist counselling. The Department provides financial support for those services, and since April 1985 we have provided nearly £1 million.
  I am also conscious that the personal health problems for haemophiliacs with HIV may, in some cases, be compounded by the reactions of other people around them. The fear of AIDS has all too often led otherwise humane and sensitive people to prejudice and discrimination, which is completely unjustified. There is no scientific or ethical justification for discriminating against people who have the AIDS virus.
  Clearly, too, there are financial worries for those who are infected with HIV. It is understandable that they should wish to live with dignity and make adequate provision for their families. Let me stress that the Government have already acted by setting up the Macfarlane Trust, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has referred. It is named after an eminent haematologist. We set up that trust with an initial £10 million. When that ex gratia
  158
  payment was announced to the House in November 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, then Minister of Health, said that we had recognised the very special circumstances of the haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus.
  The Haemophilia Society had put to us a powerful case that the position of haemophiliacs was wholly exceptional and should be treated as such. Their employment prospects and insurance status were already affected by the haemophilia itself. The treatment that led to their infection was designed to help them live as near normal lives as possible. The hereditary nature of haemophilia can, and sometimes does, mean that more than one member of the same family may be affected. Providing the grant to set up the trust was a wholly exceptional measure which recognised those special circumstances.
  Some commentators have been critical of what they see as the "means-tested" nature of the Macfarlane Trust—two of my hon. Friends referred to that. It is true that the trust deed limits the use of the fund to cases of "need", but positive criteria are not laid down and it is a matter for the trustees to allocate funds in the way which they consider best meets the needs of those who are eligible for help under the terms of the deed. I believe that the trustees carry out this task conscientiously and with sensitivity. They have been able to help a large number of people and make single payments for a wide variety of purposes arising from reasons of physical health and mental stress, including help with travel, accommodation and employment.
  Regular payments help with the extra cost of living with HIV. In the period up to 31 October 1989, the trust has made over 1,800 single payments totalling nearly £1 million and implemented regular payments in more than 600 cases at a cost of nearly £1·2 million. Some have expressed fears that the £10 million may run out. We made it clear when we announced the £10 million grant that our mind would not be closed to representations that might be made at a later stage in relation to the amount available.
  I would also remind hon. Members that the Government have made regulations to ensure that payments from the trust do not reduce any entitlement to income support, family credit and housing benefit.
  Let me stress that the grant provided to the trust was not, and is not intended as, "compensation." The position in this country under successive Governments has been that there is no state scheme of no-fault compensation for those injured by medical treatment.
  The case for alternative means of compensating victims of medical accidents was carefully investigated by the Royal Commission on civil liability and personal injury, which reported in 1978. It came down against introducing a system of no-fault compensation. The arguments for and against have not fundamentally changed. No-fault compensation may overcome the perceived unfairness of treatment between those victims of medical accidents who are awarded damages after proving negligence and those who are not compensated because either they fail to prove negligence or because negligence was clearly not involved. However, such a scheme would, in its turn, create unfairness between those who are disabled by a medical accident, who would then be compensated, and those who are equally disabled as a result of the natural progression of their disease who would not normally fall to be compensated under a no-fault scheme.
  I want to refer briefly to the court action but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be mindful of your ruling on the

  159
  matter. Some 600 haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus are pursuing compensation through the courts. The Department of Health, the Medicines Licensing Authority, which comprises the United Kingdom Health Ministers, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which gives advice to the licensing authority, are among the defendants. The legal advice which I have received is that it would be wrong of me to make any comments today which might prejudice the conduct or outcome of the case. Various allegations of negligence are made which we deny categorically. I am sure that the House will understand that I am unable at present to comment in more detail on these matters, as they are sub judice.
  I should like to repeat the Government's sympathy for the plight of the haemophiliacs with HIV and their dependants. We have already expressed that in a tangible way with the £10 million ex gratia payment for the Macfarlane Trust. I should like to remind the House of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when he was the Minister for Health. When announcing the grant, he said that our mind would not be closed to representations that might be made at a later stage.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is this a question of precedent and the feeling of the Department's legal advisers that the Department might let itself in for many other payments if it were not to defend itself on this, or is it seen as a one-off problem?
  Mr. Freeman: We believe strongly that there was no negligence on the part of the Department of Health. You, Mr. Speaker, have said that it would be wrong to go into the merits of the case before the courts. However, we categorically deny any negligence. An entirely separate issue—it has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)—is the consideration of the plight of those who have suffered this appalling affliction.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is not the governing factor here that many of the victims cannot expect to live to see a settlement in court, and that posthumous justice is not justice? Is not that the special case that the Government need in order to concede the argument that the Minister has heard tonight from both sides of the House?
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very telling point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. Many of the victims
  160
  have a short life expectancy and the matter is one of some urgency. We are seized of the significance of that argument.
  I repeat the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when he was Minister for Health, which is that our minds are not closed to representations that might be made about the adequacy of the sums provided.
  Mr. Cormack: Can the hon. Members who are in the Chamber now come to see my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for Health to discuss the matter in detail?
  Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who is responsible for these matters, will be pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and any or all the right hon. and hon. Members present. I will undertake to draw the record of this debate to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and officials in the Department——
  Mr. Cormack: And our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Freeman: I would be delighted to convey to No. 10 Downing street a copy of the Official Report. We shall study with great care this important debate. It has been a matter of great concern and emotion for all of us—I speak not only for myself, but my ministerial colleagues. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South that the matter will not rest with tonight's debate. We look forward to further discussions.
  12.19 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that the Minister feels strongly about this issue, and his reply was totally sincere. However, a long time ago I was Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Health and I wonder whether Ministers might be unduly influenced by the lawyers' difficulties and the matter to which I have referred—setting a precedent. Is there not an argument for saying that this is a one-off situation and there is an element of culpability, which the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South explained very well?
  In these unique circumstances, the Government should not feel bound by the terrible shroud of legal precedent. This is something different, and all of us with experience of these matters know that these are not run-of-the-mill cases, but a one-off situation. Am I being told that this is not a one-off situation?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq (Arms)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations his Department has undertaken into the Matrix Churchill company and the possibility that the company is supplying parts to Iraq which could be used in ballistic missile development.

  Mr. Redwood
  All export licence applications are examined carefully. I have no reason to believe that the company has contravened United Kingdom export controls.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts he is making to prevent Iraq from acquiring in Britain defence technology which could be used to develop the Condor 2 ballistic missile.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Export of Goods (Control) Order includes items controlled in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the missile technology control regime. Applications for licences to export controlled goods are carefully considered by the Departments concerned with a view to preventing exports to undesirable end users.

  Foreign Exchange Transactions
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will ask the director of the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the disparity between the margins quoted by the banks for commercial foreign exchange transactions and tourist foreign exchange transactions.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of any concern on this matter, but if the right hon. Member has any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour by banks he should bring it to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading.

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

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department has a programme of review of activities for possible relocation away from London and the south-east and the north-west is always considered along with other possible locations. We have no plans for relocation of units to the north-west of England at present. Announcements will be made as decisions are taken.

  Paper and Board Industry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to assist the British paper and board industry.
  2
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no assistance schemes specific to the paper and board industry as such, but companies in this, as in other sectors of the economy, may be eligible for assistance under various pan-sectoral schemes.

  EC Telecommunications Directive
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why agreement was not reached on the European Community telecommunications directive known as the open market provision on 7 November; whether Her Majesty's Government have assessed the proposals to be restrictive; and if he will make a statement on the procedures now to be adopted by the Commission under article 90 of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Forth
  Proposals for a Commission directive under article 90 of the treaty and Council directive on a framework for open network provision (ONP) of telecommunications services were the principal items for discussion at the Telecommunications Council on 7 November.

  The issue raised by the article 90 directive is whether the internal market in telecommunications is to be a liberal one or not. The aim of the directive under article 90 is to introduce competition into the Community market for all kinds of telecommunications services with the exception of network infrastructure and voice telephony. A majority of member states wish to limit the scope of the liberalisation envisaged in this directive. The Government strongly support the directive's policy, but have certain reservations about its legal base. The conclusions reached by the European Court of Justice in the case currently before it in respect of an article 90 directive issued in May 1988 on telecommunications terminal equipment will be relevant in this context.

  Member states did not reach a common position on ONP because a significant minority including the United Kingdom, while acknowledging that the proposal as revised after consideration by the European Parliament is a substantial improvement on the original proposal, believe that further amendment is necessary to secure the right balance between harmonisation and liberalisation.

  Company Directors (Disqualification)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many directors have been disqualified from holding office in each year since the present law was introduced as a result of their conduct in connection with the management of an insolvent company; and how many cases are pending.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 28 April 1986 the Secretary of State has obtained the following orders under what is now section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualifcation Act 1986, based on reports from practitioners and official receivers in insolvency proceedings.

  Orders obtained (Directors)

  Awaiting hearing at 31 October 1989 (Directors)

  28 April 1986 to 30 April 1987

  30

  —

  1 May 1987 to 30 April 1988

  148

  —

  1 May 1988 to 30 April 1989

  286

  —

  1 May 1989 to 31 October 1989

  124

  385

  TOTAL

  588

  —

  Framework Programme
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in the framework programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  I represented the United Kingdom meetings of the EC Council of Research Ministers on 18 September and 17 October which examined the Commission's proposal for a new framework programme for Community research and development for 1990–94. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 2 November 1989 at Hansard column 274. The Council of Ministers is next due to consider the proposal on 15 December and further information will be given to the House following that Council.

  Import Licensing (Relocation)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will relocate the import licensing branch of his Department to Billingham in Cleveland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 October 1989, c. 294]: A recent study of location options for the import licensing branch concluded that it could operate effectively and at less cost away from London. I have therefore decided that ILB will be relocated to Billingham in Cleveland by the end of 1990 when the lease on the building it currently occupies in central London expires.

  The move will absorb some of the staff no longer needed to run the regional development grants scheme at the Department's office in Cleveland and some local recruitment will also be necessary in order to fill the 53 posts which will be transferred.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has had any representations concerning allegations that police officers were not co-operating with the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Representations have occasionally been made during my visits to Crown prosecution service areas that some individual police officers had not displayed a co-operative attitude towards the service, particularly when it had just been established. The Association of Chief Police Officers has always given public and private support to the service. As an independent prosecuting service established by statute, the Crown prosecution service of course should receive the proper co-operation of the police service. I am satisfied that in general it does receive it, and that any lack of co-operation on the part of individual police officers would be exceptional.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement about elegibility for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have been considering eligibility for legal aid in relation to particular proceedings in the course of reviewing the arrangements 4
  for civil and family justice. They now propose to carry out a general review of all the financial conditions for the grant of legal aid.

  It is essential to view need in relation to particular types of proceedings in order to identify those who are prevented by lack of means from bringing or defending proceedings, where it is otherwise reasonable that they should. It is not sufficient for this purpose simply to estimate the percentage of the population who might be eligible for legal aid.

  The Government have already considered the arrangements for legal aid in care proceedings and action has been taken in the context of the Children Bill to provide for the waiving of the merits test or the means test in suitable cases. Consideration is now being given to legal aid in relation to civil proceedings as improved procedures are introduced following the civil justice review. We have established the need for certain immediate changes which are being announced today.

  They are as follows:

  (a) assessment of children's means separately from those of their parents;

  (b) an additional capital allowance for pensioners on low incomes who rely heavily on their savings;

  (c) an increase, in respect of personal injury cases, of the upper (eligibility) limits for disposable income and capital from £6,035 to £7,000 and from £6,000 to £8,000 respectively.

  Their net annual cost is estimated to be in the region of £5 million. Other legal aid limits will also be increased in April in the usual way.

  The Government intend to bring these measures into effect in Great Britain in April 1990. Similar improvements to the legal aid financial conditions will also be made in Northern Ireland, although the legislative arrangements there will mean that they will take longer to bring into effect.

  Further changes will depend on the outcome of the review of the financial conditions for legal aid which the Lord Chancellor is setting up. The review will look at all aspects of the financial conditions, including the upper (eligibility) limit, the lower (free) limit, the amount of contribution payable and the statutory charge, as well as the machinery for assessing means and enforcing the payment of contributions.

  The review will begin in January 1990 and is likely to complete its work in two or three years. It will explore the possibility of examining individual applicants' means in relation to the likely cost of different kinds of proceedings for the purpose of determining eligibility. It will consider the availability of legal expenses insurance and the position of those who proceed without legal aid.

  In due course it will extend to criminal legal aid and to family proceedings, where eligibility is higher because individuals' means are generally separately assessed. It will keep in step wih the programme of work on family law, jurisdiction and procedure announced by the Lord Chancellor on 6 December 1988 during the passage of the Children Bill. The review will extend to legal advice and assistance—the green form scheme—in criminal and matrimonial matters. It will also consider the system of uprating the financial conditions generally.

  The review will be conducted by a working group of officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Aid Board, with advice from the Department of Social Security and elsewhere as appropriate. The Scottish Office and the Scottish Legal Aid Board will participate

  5
  fully in the group on questions of equal application to Scotland. Consultation will be undertaken at appropriate stages.

  The review will be undertaken in addition to the regular limited studies which the Government conduct each year for the purpose of uprating the legal aid limits.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if any disciplinary action has been commenced against any fraud squad officer having access to copy No. 26 of the Department of Trade and Industry House of Fraser report; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if criminal inquiries are being pursued in respect of the leak of copy No. 26 of the Department of Trade and Industry House of Fraser report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officers of the complaints investigation bureau of the Metropolitan police are carrying out an investigation into the leak of the Department of Trade and Industry report, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. The investigation will examine whether criminal or disciplinary proceedings should be brought against any police officer, and is expected to take some time to complete.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Carbon Tax
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries impose a carbon tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am not aware of any countries that impose a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, or on fuels that produce carbon dioxide, with the intention of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage rate of growth of capital investment in the United Kingdom over the decade 1979 to 1989, and what is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average for the same period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Gross domestic fixed capital formation in the United Kingdom is estimated to have grown by 34 per cent. at constant 1985 prices over the period 1979 to 1988, the last year for which full figures are available. For the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a whole, the latest estimates show a growth of 29 per cent. over the same period at constant 1985 prices and exchange rates.

  Car Disposal Tax
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any plans to introduce a car disposal tax along Scandinavian lines.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Bank of England
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the operation of the Bank of England Act 1946; and if he will make a statement.
  6
  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have no plans to review the Bank of England Act 1946.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits to the Bank of England of emulating the more independent stances, in relation to their central Governments, of the Bundesbank and the United States Federal Reserve Board.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the Leader of the Opposition on 2 November at column 464.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has prepared any estimate of the rate of the exchange against the D-mark at which it would be possible to join the ERM of the EMS to combine an acceptable rate of economic growth with balance of payments equilibrium.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement in the House on 2 November at column 490 which set out the factors that will determine when the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism.

  Lending (Property)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has undertaken with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding excessive lending to the property sector.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England at which a variety of subjects are discussed.

  Income Tax Allowance
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional revenue accruing to the Exchequer in the next fiscal year of not indexing to the rate of inflation the income tax allowance, assuming an inflation rate of 8 per cent. and no change in the income tax rate.

  Mr. Major
  Estimates of the revenue cost of indexation for 1990–91 will be published in the Autumn Statement later this month.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total per capita public expenditure in England in the past three years, excluding spending on social security.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Although information on public expenditure within the four countries of the United Kingdom is not available from the Treasury's public expenditure database or from the national accounts, a special exercise is carried out each year to collect this data. The results of the 1988 exercise were published in the House of Commons Official Report on 25 October 1988, at columns 120–29.

  In this annual exercise expenditure is divided into "identifiable" expenditure—that deemed to have been

  7
  incurred on behalf of the resident of each individual country—and "unidentifiable" expenditure—expenditure incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole, for example, defence spending. On the basis of the figures published on 25 October 1988 per capita identifiable public expenditure, excluding expenditure spending on social security, in England was as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  1,102

  1986–87

  1,166

  1987–88

  1,247

  These figures relate to identifiable expenditure within the public expenditure planning total as defined for the 1988 and earlier public expenditure surveys. As announced in Cm. 441, the definition of the planning total has been changed for the 1989 public expenditure survey. As a consequence, the basis of this annual exercise will be changed to cover general Government expenditure. The results of this year's exercise will be published shortly.

  Inflation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of inflation in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: The table gives the inflation figures, as measured by the retail prices index, for each year requested.

  Retail Price Index

  Annual per cent. change

  1978–79

  8·4

  1979–80

  15·8

  1980–81

  16·3

  1981–82

  11·5

  1982–83

  7·1

  1983–84

  4·7

  1984–85

  5·0

  1985–86

  5·9

  1986–87

  3·2

  1987–88

  3·9

  1988–89

  6·0

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the percentage rate of growth of capital investment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom over the decade 1979 to 1989; and what is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average over the same period;

  (2) what is the percentage rate of growth of capital investment in fixed assets in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom over the decade 1979 to 1989; and what is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average over the same period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: 1988 is the most recent full year for which investment data are available. In that year gross domestic fixed capital formation by United Kingdom manufacturing industry, including leased assets, equalled its 1979 level, at 1985 prices, following average growth of 8¼ per cent. a year from 1983.
  8
  Figures for all OECD countries are not available on a comparable basis over this period. Such information as is available is published in "OECD National Accounts, volume 11, 1975–1987".

  VAT
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to industry and commerce by increasing value added tax to 18 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: The operation of the VAT system means that businesses making only taxable supplies would he able to deduct the VAT on their costs except in respect of purchases of motor cars and business entertainment. Businesses making exempt supplies would generally bear increased VAT on their purchases. Overall, the additional VAT that would be borne by businesses is estimated to be around £¾billion.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated effect on the retail price index of increasing value added tax from 15 to 18 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: It is estimated that the effect on the retail prices index of increasing value added tax from 15 to 18 per cent. would be an increase in the index of around 1½ per cent.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated effect, in money terms, on the annual family expenditure budget of(a) a single pensioner whose only income was the state pension, (b) a married pensioner couple whose only income was the state pension,(c) a single parent family earning £6,000 per annum, (d) a married couple with two children earning £10,000 per annum, (e) a married couple with two children earning £12,500 per annum and (f) a married couple earning £18,000 per annum with two children and (g) a married couple on unemployment benefit with two children; if value added tax were increased to 18 per cent.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: Assuming that their level and pattern of expenditure were unchanged, a married couple with two children with earned income of £12,500 a year would pay about £120 a year more in VAT, if the rate of VAT were raised to 18 per cent. The comparable figure for a similar family with earned income of £18,000 a year would be around £190 a year.

  No estimates are available for the other family types specified in the question, since data on their expenditure patterns are less reliable.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from(a) hon. and and right hon. Members and (b) others during the past three months concerning the policy of Her Majesty's Government relating to Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.
  9
  Mr. Maude
  We have received more than 600 representations from hon. and right hon. Members, and more than 4,000 from other sources in the last three months.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters and telephone inquiries his Department has received from the public on Cambodia since 31 October.

  Mr. Maude
  The Department has received over 3,500 letters and approximately 40 telephone inquiries on Cambodia since 31 October.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose or sponsor the establishment of an international mission to verify that Vietnamese forces have fully withdrawn from Cambodia.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 30 October.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will now make it his policy to support any challenge to the seating at the United Nations of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea when the situation in Cambodia is debated at the United Nations General Assembly on 15 and 16 November;

  (2) what information he has as to whether Vietnamese forces have now left Cambodia.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 8 November.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what military training and support Her Majesty's Government have given to the forces of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea; what information he has as to co-ordinated attacks on Cambodia by the forces of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 8 November.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to support pp4 of the ASEAN draft resolution on Cambodia, on foreign armed intervention and occupation in Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes. We have agreed to co-sponsor this resolution.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government intend to co-sponsor the resolution on Cambodia put forward by ASEAN countries for debate at the United Nations General Assembly on 15 November.
  10
  Mr. Maude
  Yes, along with, at the last count, 75 others.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the United Kingdom has voted to seat the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea at the United Nations; and how many such votes have taken place.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1979 the United Kingdom voted in favour of a General Assembly resolution adopting the report of the credentials committee recommending, inter alia, acceptance of the credentials of Democratic Kampuchea. From 1980–82 the United Kingdom voted against challenges to the credentials of Democratic Kampuchea in the General Assembly. There has been no vote since 1982.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has as to the number of Cambodian civilians who died in each year from 1976 to the present.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no reliable sources of information on which to base such estimates.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the former relations between the ambassador extraordinary and plenipoteniary to the United Nations of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Pol Pot.

  Mr. Maude
  The ambassador to the United Nations of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea is Thiounn Prasith. Between 1975 and 1979 he was employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Democratic Kampuchea.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sources of information Her Majesty's Government use to assess the political, social and economic situation in Cambodia.

  Mr. Maude
  We draw on all sources available to us. These include the reporting of Her Majesty's embassies in Bangkok and elsewhere, the views of non-governmental organisations working inside Cambodia, consultation with our friends and partners and reports in the media.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when there was last a visit by representatives of Her Majesty's Government to Cambodia.

  Mr. Maude
  No representative of ours has visited Cambodia since the Vietnamese invasion in 1979.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which is the dominant faction in the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea.

  Mr. Maude
  The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) comprises three factions: Prince Norodom Sihanouk's group (FUNCINPEC), the Kampuchea People's National Liberation Front (KPNLF), and the Khmer Rouge. It is our policy to support the non-Communist resistance (FUNCINPEC and KPNLF) and we are determined that they should not fall under the domination of the Khmer Rouge.
  11
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what positive evidence he has that Pol Pot is still actively involved in the direction of the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Maude
  It is difficult to assess shifts of influence within the Khmer Rouge. We understand that Pol Pot resigned from his one remaining official position, that of Head of the Academy of National Defence, with effect from 3 June 1989. But he is still believed to wield influence behind the scenes.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Marat Goldberg of Leningrad;

  (2) what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Mila Novik of Moscow and her two children.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have not previously raised these particular cases with the Soviet authorities but we will be happy to do so if my hon. Friend will provide the details.

  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 Sasha and Irene Sterkin of Moscow and their two sons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every opportunity to press the Soviet authorities on individual refusenik cases such as that of Sasha and Irene Sterkin. 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 shall maintain our pressure until Sasha and Irene Sterkin are given permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

  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 Barenshtein and his wife and two daughters of Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every opportunity to press the Soviet authorities on individual refusenik cases such as that of Mark Barenshtein and his family. The last occasion that we raised this case was on 29 September when my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Shevardnadze in New York. We shall maintain our pressure until this case is resolved satisfactorily.

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

  Mr. Maude
  There are no plans to relocate the offices of either the diplomatic wing or the aid wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the north-west of England. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 6 November regarding the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's relocation programme.

  Mr. Karnail Singh Khaira
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning the arrest on 18 October in Jullundur, India, of Mr. Karnail Singh Khaira and his subsequent detention; and what response he has received from the Indian Government.

  Mr Maude
  The British high commission in New Delhi is pressing the Indian authorities for early consular access to Mr. Khaira, and awaits their response. Mr. Khaira's lawyer entered a writ of habeas corpus on 9 November 1989.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the training of another group of Indian peacekeeping forces to be based in north Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of the Indian peacekeeping forces based in Sri Lanka at the present time; and when they are due to be withdrawn.

  Mr. Maude
  In an agreement announced on 18 September, the Indian and Sri Lankan Governments noted that all efforts would be made to complete withdrawal of the Indian peacekeeping force by 31 December 1989. The process is under way. Our best estimate of the size of the Indian force, based on official announcements, is between 35,000 and 38,000.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Indian Government regarding the basing of Indian peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  None. We supported the Indo-Sri Lankan accord of 1987, and we welcome the agreement between the two countries announced on 18 September, which provided a framework for implementation of measures to achieve a peaceful settlement in the north and east and the phased withdrawal of the Indian peacekeeping force.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 November, if he will identify where the observations in relation to Gibraltar's lack of elected representation in the European Parliament made by the then Home Secretary may be found.

  Mr. Maude
  The observations are contained in the Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings No. 175 of 20 June 1984 at column 1455.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have yet signed and ratified the
  13
  United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and whether he will specify any reservations that have been entered by Her Majesty's Government on various articles of the convention.

  Mr. Maude
  The United Nations draft convention on the rights of the child is likely to be adoped by the United Nations later this month and we intend to ratify as soon as possible thereafter. We may need to enter reservations on various articles but the scope of these has yet to be determined. One area where we may need to enter a reservation would be in relation to our immigration and nationality laws.

  British Embassies
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice and assistance was offered by his Department to British firms tendering for the construction of the new British embassy in Tokyo.

  Mr. Maude
  No new British embassy is proposed for Tokyo. The tender list for the construction of eight houses and a small apartment block in the British embassy compound has not yet been drawn up. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has suggested to the Export Group for the Constructional Industries that British firms that are keen to establish a constructional foothold in Japan should forward tender pre-qualification details to the FCO for consideration. At least half the tender list will be reserved for United Kingdom contractors and the tender documents will state that particular attention would be paid to the tenders submitted by British or British/Japanese joint venture companies.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards assisting British firms tendering for contracts to build British embassies in protected foreign markets.

  Mr. Maude
  Our policy is to achieve the best value for money for the overseas diplomatic estate's capital construction programme. Tender lists are therefore open both to British and to local firms that express interest in a given project and can meet pre-qualification requirements.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the issue of German reunification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  It has been the belief of successive British Governments that real and permanent stability in Europe will not be achieved so long as the German nation is divided against its will. As a first step, the people of East Germany should have the right to hold free elections and to self-determination.

  Afghanistan
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are known to be resident in Afghanistan at the latest available date; and what arrangements have been made for their interests to be looked after.
  14
  Mr. Maude
  In February of this year, we were aware of five British nationals in Afghanistan.

  As my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in his reply to the hon. Member's question on 13 March 1989, we informed British nationals before the temporary withdrawal of embassy staff in February 1989 that consular assistance would no longer be available in Afghanistan. British nationals who travel to or remain in the country do so in the knowledge that this is so.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of British diplomatic staff at present posted in Afghanistan; and when he expects the British Ambassador there to be appointed and take up post.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no British diplomats in Afghanistan. Her Majesty's ambassador was withdrawn in 1980 following the Soviet invasion. There are no current plans to appoint a new ambassador.

  Diplomatic Representation
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries where Britain has no diplomatic representation, giving in each case the reason why no such representation is considered necessary.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 5 May to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Since then agreement has been reached with Argentina to re-establish consular relations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Durham Prison
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be acting on the recommendations made by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons with regard to Durham prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  A statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) setting out the action which was being taken, was published on 19 October 1989 as his response to the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on Durham prison and a copy was placed in the Library.

  Suicides
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there have been in(a) all United Kingdom prisons and (b) Swansea prison in each of the last 10 years; how many were prisoners on remand; and how many were prisoners under the age of 21 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table gives the figures for inmates held in prison establishments in England and Wales in each year since 1980.
  15

  Year

  Total suicides1

  Suicides by remand inmates1

  Suicides by inmates under the age of 211

  1980

  21

  12

  2

  1981

  16

  7

  1

  1982

  17

  8

  4

  1983

  21

  9

  2

  1984

  23

  12

  2

  1985

  23

  14

  1

  1986

  17

  12

  3

  1987

  42

  27

  7

  1988

  30

  19

  7

  1989

  221

  29

  22

  1 The table gives the number of deaths for which suicide verdicts were returned at the inquest.

  2 Inquests have yet to be held on 14 other inmates who have died in 1989 and whose deaths are thought to have been suicides. Of these 11 were on remand and six were under the age of 21.

  Suicide verdicts have been returned on two inmates who died at Swansea prison during the same period, one in 1984 and one in 1988. Both were remand inmates. The inmate who died in 1984 was under the age of 21. An inquest has yet to be held on an 18 year-old remand inmate who died at Swansea prison on 4 November 1989.

  Deaths of inmates in custody in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases originating in Scotland are pending before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and how many such cases have been dealt with by the board in every year since its inception.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board had 95,395 cases outstanding on 31 October 1989. No breakdown of this total is kept between English, Scottish and Welsh cases, but over recent years the proportion of Scottish applications has been around 16 per cent. of the total.

  The number of Scottish cases resolved since the board was set up is given in the table:

  Period

  Number of cases resolved

  1 August 1964 to 31 March 1966

  190

  Year ended

  31 March

  1967

  536

  1968

  869

  1969

  1,522

  1970

  1,493

  1971

  1,153

  1972

  1,828

  1973

  1,862

  1974

  2,129

  1975

  2,304

  1976

  2,482

  1977

  2,705

  1978

  2,898

  1979

  2,999

  1980

  3,355

  1981

  3,864

  1982

  3,441

  1983

  4,303

  1984

  4,753

  1985

  4,024

  16

  Period

  Number of cases resolved

  1986

  3,783

  1987

  4,407

  1988

  4,391

  1989

  5,482

  Total

  66,773

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and qualifications of the present members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and the total length of time they have served as members of the board.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme members must be legally qualified. Present members, who are listed in the table, with their dates of appointment, are either Queen's Counsel with experience in civil litigation or past presidents of the Law Society.

  Name

  Date of appointment to the Board

  Mr. James Law QC1

  29 September 1970

  Mr. Charles Whitby QC

  20 October 1975

  Mr. Barry Chedlow QC

  13 January 1976

  Mr. David Calcutt QC

  5 September 1977

  Miss Beryl Cooper QC

  12 September 1978

  Miss Shirley Ritchie QC

  23 June 1980

  Sir John Palmer JP

  6 March 1981

  Mr. Stuart Shields QC

  13 March 1981

  Sir Denis Marshall

  15 September 1982

  Mr. Hugh Carlisle QC

  22 December 1982

  Mr. Colin Fawcett QC

  12 April 1983

  Mr. Michael Park CBE1

  8 July 1983

  Mr. Martin Thomas OBE QC

  9 April 1985

  Mr. John Crowley QC

  3 July 1985

  Sir Arthur Hoole

  30 July 1985

  Mr. Michael Bruce QC1

  1 January 1986

  Mr. Donald Robertson QC1

  1 April 1986

  Mr. Michael Lewer QC

  30 September 1986

  Mr. Peter Weitzman QC

  8 November 1986

  Mr. Conrad Seagroatt QC

  15 November 1986

  Mr. John Archer QC

  2 January 1987

  Mr. Owen Thomas QC

  18 March 1987

  Mr. Leighton Williams QC

  26 March 1987

  Mr. Graeme Hamilton QC

  15 April 1987

  Mr. William Gage QC

  22 December 1987

  Mr. Barry Green QC

  24 December 1987

  Mrs. Janet Smith QC

  29 December 1987

  Mr. Thomas Dawson QC1

  31 January 1988

  Sir Derek Bradbeer OBE

  18 April 1988

  Mr. Crawford Lindsay QC

  19 April 1988

  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow PC QC2

  1 December 1988

  Mrs. Barbara Mills QC

  30 October 1988

  Mr. Robert Smith QC

  7 November 1988

  Lord Macaulay of Bragar QC1

  12 January 1989

  Miss Diana Cotton QC

  26 January 1989

  Mr. Donald Mackay QC1

  6 February 1989

  Mr. Evan Stone QC

  13 July 1989

  Mr. Daniel Brennan QC

  21 September 1989

  Mr. Timothy Preston QC

  25 September 1989

  Mr. John Cherry QC

  21 October 1989

  1 Scottish Member.

  2 Chairman from 1 March 1989.

  Drugs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered drug addicts are currently on remand or under sentence in prison establishments in England and Wales.
  17
  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Tom Cox) on 10 November at columns 803–04.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic composition of the remand and sentenced prison population for the latest date

  Population1 of specified Prision Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1989: by establishment, type of prisoner and ethnic origin

  Number

  Ethnic origin

  Establishment and type of prisoner

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  Total number of persons in establishments

  Brixton

  Untried

  440

  226

  22

  19

  30

  737

  Convicted unsentenced

  105

  36

  3

  3

  1

  148

  Sentenced

  123

  33

  6

  3

  5

  170

  Non-criminal

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  All prisoners

  668

  297

  31

  25

  36

  1,057

  Wormwood Scrubs2

  Untried

  388

  228

  17

  15

  7

  655

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sentenced

  320

  46

  9

  7

  9

  391

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  708

  274

  26

  22

  16

  1,046

  Wandsworth

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Convicted unsentenced

  29

  26

  3

  1

  3

  62

  Sentenced

  1,029

  338

  54

  33

  34

  1,488

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  1,058

  364

  57

  34

  37

  1,550

  Pentonville

  Untried

  101

  51

  2

  7

  7

  168

  Convicted unsentenced

  28

  10

  2

  1

  1

  42

  Sentenced

  480

  151

  21

  17

  4

  673

  Non-criminal

  11

  5

  —

  10

  1

  27

  All prisoners

  620

  217

  25

  35

  13

  910

  Holloway

  Untried

  116

  62

  2

  8

  34

  222

  Convicted unsentenced

  32

  8

  1

  2

  11

  54

  Sentenced

  109

  61

  1

  5

  19

  195

  Non-criminal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  All prisoners

  257

  132

  4

  15

  64

  472

  Manchester3

  Untried

  423

  36

  15

  27

  18

  519

  Convicted unsentenced

  168

  5

  1

  6

  8

  188

  Sentenced

  803

  32

  16

  19

  9

  879

  Non-criminal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All prisoners

  1,394

  73

  32

  52

  35

  1,586

  Birmingham

  Untried

  260

  74

  22

  7

  12

  375

  Convicted unsentenced

  54

  8

  7

  2

  3

  74

  Sentenced

  376

  71

  26

  15

  8

  496

  Non-criminal

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  5

  All prisoners

  691

  153

  58

  25

  23

  950

  Leeds

  Untried

  490

  33

  29

  13

  11

  576

  Convicted unsentenced

  73

  5

  2

  2

  2

  84

  Sentenced

  565

  22

  18

  11

  6

  622

  Non-criminal

  5

  3

  —

  1

  —

  9

  All prisoners

  1,133

  63

  49

  27

  19

  1,291

  1 Provisional. The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate.

  2 Local and closed training prison.

  3 Remand centre and local prison.

  18
  available at (a) Brixton, (b) Wormwood Scrubs, (c) Wandsworth, (d) Pentonville, (e) Holloway, (f) Manchester (g) Birmingham and (h) Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The latest available information is given in the table.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of male and female remand and sentenced prisoners in England and Wales are known to be derived from an ethnic minority for the latest date available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The readily available information is given in the table. The

  Population1 of prison service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1989: by type of prisoner, sex and ethnic origin

  Number

  Ethnic origin

  Type of prisoner and sex

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  Total of persons in establishments

  Males

  Untried

  6,053

  1,077

  209

  175

  429

  7,943

  Convicted unsentenced

  1,516

  177

  32

  34

  86

  1,845

  Sentenced

  30,748

  3,637

  1,055

  676

  618

  36,734

  Non-criminal

  79

  41

  27

  38

  69

  254

  All prisoners

  38,396

  4,932

  1,323

  923

  1,202

  46,776

  Females

  Untried

  245

  67

  3

  13

  50

  378

  Convicted unsentenced

  71

  9

  1

  3

  14

  98

  Sentenced

  892

  267

  22

  34

  64

  1,279

  Non-criminal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  All prisoners

  1,208

  344

  26

  50

  128

  1,756

  1 Provisional. The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate.

  Prisoners (Postage Stamps)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers prison governors have to forbid the loan of a postage stamp by one prisoner to another.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: Powers exist under Standing Order 4 and prison rule 47. One of their purposes is to prevent items, such as postage stamps, from being used as a form of currency within prisons.

PRIME MINISTER

  East Timor
  Dr. Thomas (Meirionydd Nant Conwy)
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will list the United Kingdom's voting record on the question of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor during the general assemblies of the United Nations held since 1979).

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom abstained on all United Nation General Assembly resolutions on East Timor between 1979 and 1982—resolutions 34/49 (1979); 35/27 (1980); 36/50 (1981) and 37/30 (1982). There have been no United Nations resolutions since.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters and telephone inquiries her office has received from the public on Cambodia since 31 October.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received approximately 1,500 letters on Cambodian-related matters.
  20
  information is published annually in "Prison statistics, England and Wales", table 1.11 of the 1988 issue, Cm. 825, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr John Broome
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what contact she has had with Mr. John Broome CBE since she launched The Battersea in June 1988; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My normal practice is and will continue to be neither to confirm nor deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place, even in those cases where no such meeting has occurred.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tapajos Forest, Brazil
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his decision to approve a study of the Tapajos area of tropical forest in Brazil in the light of the fact that it has already been the subject of study.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 9 November at column 719.

  Aid
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current cost of British overseas aid; and how much of the total is allocated to the dependent territories and how much to each of the dependent territories.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the current financial year the aid programme stands at £1,500 million. Last financial year we spent £44,095,000 on aid for the dependent territories broken down as follows:
  21

  £000s

  Anguilla

  1,778

  British Virgin Islands

  2,033

  Montserrat

  2,158

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  5,046

  Falkland Islands

  3,622

  Gibralter1

  8,733

  St. Helena2

  20,725

  TOTAL

  44,095

  1 Includes assistance towards a pensions settlement.

  2 Includes payments for a new ship—the island's only physical link with the rest of the world.

  This financial year we expect to spend a broadly similar total.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special financial assistance has been given to Montserrat in consequece of the recent widespread hurricane damage in the dependency; if he will provide a breakdown of the extra expenditure incurred, indicating the purposes for which it was allocated in each case; and how much of the total expenditure has been or will be the responsibility of Ministers in the dependency.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given to the island of Montserrat to overcome the damage caused by hurricane Hugo on 17 September.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Immediately following hurricane Hugo Britain made an initial £1 million available for emergency assistance, such as tents, blankets, roofing, medicaments and so on, and also the services of the British armed forces for immediate repairs and the airfreighting of supplies. Most of this assistance was directed to Montserrat. Subsequently, a further £3·2 million for reconstruction aid has been committed. This is being used to finance teams of engineers, linesmen and electricians—some 50 people—from British electricity boards who are repairing the power distribution system and for the supply of equipment and materials for the restoring of essential infrastructure. The funds will he used primarily in Montserrat, which suffered by far the worse damage, but also in Antigua.

  Officials from the British development division in Barbados and from the United Kingdom have recently completed a review of Montserrat's longer-term reconstruction needs and strategy. We will be discussing these with the Government of Montserrat, and with the multilateral agencies and other donors.

  The reconstruction work is the responsibility of the Montserrat Government and the public service companies concerned. The British Government will be contributing, and the ODA will monitor the use of aid funds in the usual way.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what quantity of paper, excluding newspapers, in metric tonnes, has been used in the House of Commons within the last 12 months on(a) Members' stationery,
  22
  (b) the Vote Bundle, (c) the Official Report and (d) production of Bills and other legislative documents; if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Vaz), Official Report, 4 April, column 68, he is now in a position to indicate what percentage of the paper is recycled, specifying percentages for each of the four sections; what percentage of each section identified is subsequently recycled; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is(a) 26 tonnes; (b) 168 tonnes; (c) 158 tonnes and (d) 43 tonnes. Recycled paper is not used for these categories because much of the material is of archival significance, and recycled paper of suitable archival quality is not currently obtainable. Buff envelopes, ruled writing paper, file covers, note books, index books, lavatory paper and waste paper sacks all contain at least 50 per cent. recycled material. All non-confidential waste paper from the House of Commons is collected by a contractor for recycling.

  Questions
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total number of(a) oral and written parliamentary questions put down (i) in the last Session, (ii) five and (iii) 10 years previously; and if he will provide similar figures excluding oral questions to the Prime Minister.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information1 available for Sessions 1977–78, 1982–83 and 1987–88 is as follows:

  Questions tabled

  (a) Oral

  Written

  1977–78

  9,036

  28,739

  1982–832

  6,125

  17,095

  1987–882

  24,940

  47,726

  1 Statistics for oral questions excluding those tabled for reply by the Prime Minister are not readily available in the form requested.

  2 1982–83 was a "short" Session and 1987–88 was "long" Session.

  Kenyan Tea and Coffee
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if Kenyan tea or coffee is served in restaurants and cafeterias in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Tea and coffee purchased by the Refreshment Department are blended products originating from more than one country.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ordination of Women
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what finance and facilities the Church Commissioners are making available(a) to supporters of the ordination of women and (b) opponents of the same; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  None. This is a matter for the General Synod.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Business
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he spends each week on duchy business.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I spend approximately a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Wyre
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the Wyre constituency in the county palatine.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to visit the Wyre constituency at present.

  Council

  Controlled schools

  Voluntary and maintained schools

  Universities

  Colleges of education

  area/hectares

  area/hectares

  acres

  acres

  Antrim

  36·73

  9·86

  —

  —

  Armagh

  18·07

  22·57

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  29·36

  25·13

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  10·40

  8·04

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  17·85

  5·74

  —

  —

  Belfast

  85·10

  75·54

  74

  12·0

  Carrickfergus

  30·81

  2·51

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  28·89

  6·70

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  28·44

  14·47

  60

  —

  Cookstown

  12·77

  13·00

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  54·19

  24·94

  —

  —

  Down

  19·25

  34·42

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  23·10

  38·38

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  15·81

  24·76

  —

  —

  Larne

  10·70

  7·22

  —

  —

  Limavady

  23·42

  7·97

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  39·86

  20·96

  —

  —

  Londonderry

  34·55

  41·19

  7

  —

  Magherafelt

  10·32

  20·74

  —

  —

  Moyle

  7·65

  5·62

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  19·90

  43·35

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  32·28

  18·58

  40

  —

  Newtownards

  32·12

  3·61

  —

  —

  North Down

  16·91

  15·76

  —

  —

  Omagh

  18·06

  21·40

  —

  —

  Strabane

  20·07

  18·15

  —

  —

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the statutory minimum standards for outdoor playing space in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current level of provision of outdoor playing space in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no general statutory minimum standards for outdoor playing space in Northern Ireland except for schools whose standards are laid down in the School Premises (Standards) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1973 (SR and O No. 491 (1973)). I have made no overall assessment of the levels of provision for outdoor playing space in Northern Ireland, but I am satisfied with the minimum standards laid down for schools in these regulations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Playing Spaces
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show (a) the total amount of outdoor playing space in Northern Ireland, (b) the amount of playing space by district council area, (c) the amount of playing space per head of the population in each council area, (d) the amount of such playing space in each council which is owned by (i) councils, (ii) schools, (iii) recognised sporting clubs and bodies and (iv) others, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Play space at schools and higher education establishments is shown in the table. The other information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of young unemployed in the Province at the latest available date.

  Mr. Needham
  At 14 September 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 31,593 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland were under 25 years old, and 4,739 of these were aged 18 or under.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the unemployment figure among construction workers in the Province at the latest date.

  Mr. Needham
  At 14 September 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 17,549 unemployed construction workers in Northern Ireland.

ENVIRONMENT

  Science and Policy Issues
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from the Nature Conservancy Council regarding existing science and policy issues at a national level; and whether he will place a copy of that advice in the Library.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has received a variety of representations and advice about the Government's proposals to reorganise the conservation agencies, which were announced in July. Among these was a paper from the Nature Conservancy Council entitled "Proposed Reorganisation of NCC: Policy and Science Issues". With the agreement of the chairman of the council, copies of this paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

  Containers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to encourage the use of biodegradable plastic containers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are considering with industry and local authorities how to promote the most environmentally responsible means of dealing with plastics waste, including biodegradability, recycling and reuse. The long-term effects of biodegradable plastics on the environment is to be the subject of research which the Government will be monitoring closely.

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

  Mr. Patten
  Over 1,500 posts in my Department (including the Property Services Agency) are already located in the north-west. Eleven posts in the Department's rent charges unit will shortly be transferred to Manchester. Information about the Department's review of the scope for further relocation was given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 26 July at column 785.

  Forests
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the target figure of replanting the world's forests with 12 million hectares of trees each year from the turn of the century, agreed at Noordwijk, will be achieved.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Noordwijk declaration makes no apportionment of the suggested 12 million hectares target as between individual countries. However, the United Kingdom already has a creditable record on forestry. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in her speech to the United Nations, we intend to increase spending largely on the tropical forest action plan by £100 million over the next three years. This is in addition to the 125 forestry schemes worldwide already 26
  being supported directly or jointly with a number of non-governmental organisations. In the United Kingdom the farm woodland scheme has a target of 36,000 hectares of domestic tree planting over a three-year period and the Department of Transport is planting 1 million trees a year in conjunction with its roads programme.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on British participation at the CITES conference at Lausanne in relation to the American proposals on reviews of research proposals in relation to ivory, fur and reptile skins.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. I understand, however, that the Japanese Government have indicated that they fully support the decision of the CITES conference to transfer the African elephant from appendix II to appendix I of the convention, and have no intention of entering a reservation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contacts he has had with Japan over the honouring of the CITES Lausanne agreement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The proposals were not discussed in any of the formal conference sessions. We will study the results of any such work with interest in consultation with our scientific advisers.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each planning authority the proportion of planning appeals upheld, categorised according to the reasons for appeal, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those people who are neither hon. Members of Parliament, former Prime Ministers, nor civil servants who are entitled to use the Government car service, and the reason for their entitlement.

  Mr. Chope
  In addition to Members of Parliament and civil servants, entitlement to use the Government car service is extended, by reason of their official duties, to the chairmen or chief executives of certain national boards, judges, officials of the Houses of Parliament, No. 10 Downing street, and occasionally to visiting foreign Government officials and trade delegations.

  Education and Youth Service (Funding)
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 1990–91 standard assessment for(a) education, (b) under-fives education, (c) primary education, (d) secondary education, (e) post-16 education, and (f) other education, for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing provisional 1990–91 standard spending assessments for under-fives education, primary education,
  27
  secondary education, post-16 education, other education and all education services for each local education authority in England.

  Ms. Hilary Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what elements of the standard spending assessment for each local education authority is attributable to the youth service expenditure; and if he will list that element for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Chope
  Allowance for the expenditure on youth related services is made within the other education sub-block of the education standard spending assessment. This sub-block also covers adult education. The proposed control total for this block in 1990–91 is £756 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will specify the guidance he has issued on the Government's policy, for the period after the abolition of domestic rates, towards rating of domestic property, when that property is used for a non-domestic purpose which does not materially detract from the domestic use.

  Mr. Chope
  The Inland Revenue valuation office will determine whether minor non-domestic use of domestic property should be assessed for rating purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Guidance, in the form of a practice note, will be issued to all local authorities as soon as possible on the boundary between domestic and non-domestic property and will include details of the approach to be adopted by valuation officers in such cases.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total budget for urban programmes for the year 1989–90; and what amounts of urban programme aid have been allocated to each of the 57 qualifying authorities for the year to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The total provision for the urban programme in 1989–90 is £260 million. A total of £246 million was allocated to local authorities—and district health authorities within those areas. The remainder was topsliced for the Merseyside special allocation, residual traditional urban programme commitments, low attaining pupils programme and research. The local authority allocations are as follows:

  1989–90 Total allocation

  £ million

  Northern

  Newcastle/Gateshead

  17·061

  Hartlepool

  1·750

  Langbaurgh

  1·750

  Middlesbrough

  5·349

  North Tyneside

  3·400

  South Tyneside

  4·700

  Stockton

  1·368

  Sunderland

  5·019

  North West

  Manchester/Salford

  21·773

  Blackburn

  4·000

  Bolton

  3·625

  28

  £million

  Burnley

  1·891

  Oldham

  3·583

  Preston

  2·120

  Rochdale

  3·545

  Wigan

  2·366

  East Midlands

  Derby

  1·480

  Leicester

  4·750

  Nottingham

  5·120

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  Barnsley

  1·598

  Bradford

  4·500

  Doncaster

  1·793

  Hull

  4·636

  Kirklees

  0·914

  Leeds

  4·315

  Rotherham

  1·794

  Sheffield

  5·059

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  19·353

  Halton

  1·325

  Knowsley

  3·768

  St. Helens

  1·662

  Sefton

  1·429

  Wirral

  3·253

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  23·000

  Coventry

  4·575

  Dudley

  1·340

  Sandwell

  4·407

  Walsall

  1·595

  Wolverhampton

  4·867

  The Wrekin

  0·680

  South West

  Bristol

  1·373

  Plymouth

  1·003

  London

  Hackney

  7·734

  Islington

  8·567

  Lambeth

  9·965

  Brent

  3·336

  Greenwich

  1·067

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  3·330

  Haringey

  2·650

  Kensington/Chelsea

  1·775

  Lewisham

  1·700

  Newham

  2·589

  Southwark

  2·494

  Tower Hamlets

  4·373

  Wandsworth

  3·256

  TOTAL

  245·725

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations are to be granted funding under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 during the next financial year; and what is the amount they will receive.

  Mr. Chope
  No decisions have yet been taken on which voluntary organisations are to be funded under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 during the next financial year. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Floor Tiles (House of Commons)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the damaged floor tiles in the House will be replaced.

  Mr. Chope
  Temporary repairs to the damaged tiles were carried out earlier this year. Discussions are continuing with English Heritage to develop a programme for either the permanent repair or replacement of the damaged tiles in the Central Lobby, Lower Waiting Hall and St. Stephen's Hall. The parliamentary works office hopes to be able to put agreed proposals to the House in the new year.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any proposals to demolish Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. Listed building consent was given by Wandsworth borough council in June 1986 for a scheme that envisaged minor amounts of demolition. Consent for other works has been given by the council subsequently.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the effect of the introduction in March of the tenants' sanction procedures for right-to-buy applicants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The tenants' sanction procedures were introduced by section 124 of the Housing Act 1988 and came into effect on 10 March 1989. The provisions provide for tenants who are exercising the right to buy their homes, but are being held up by delays on the part of the landlord, to require the rent they pay while the delay continues to be treated as an advance payment towards the purchase price, and to shorten by a corresponding period the time within which they are liable to repay discount if they resell their home. These measures therefore provide financial redress for tenants who suffer from delay, and penalise the local authorities who cause this delay.

  I am glad to be able to announce that there are signs of improved right-to-buy performance in London since the introduction of the tenants' sanction. But the Department continues to receive a large number of complaints about right-to-buy delays and it is clear that the most significant delays still occur in London where the Department currently monitor 12 boroughs of which four—Brent, Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark—have more than 1,000 cases delayed beyond the statutory time limits.

  I have decided that it is now appropriate to review the performance of all London housing authorities in the light of the introduction of the delay procedures.

  So as to determine the effect of the tenants' sanction provisions and the extent of right-to-buy delays in London, the Department has written to all London boroughs asking them to provide details of their right-to-buy caseload and the number of tenant's sanction notices which have been served on them. A copy of the letter to chief executives has been placed in the Library.

  I will consider what further monitoring or other measures are necessary when I have the results of this exercise.

  Water Authorities (Interest Payments)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what income was received by the national loans fund in respect of interest payments by water authorities in the last financial year.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 November 1980]: This information will be presented to the House shortly when, in accordance with paragraph 35 of schedule 3 to the Water Act 1973, the national loans fund White Paper accounts for 1988–89 are published.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to take to encourage and assist local authorities to provide or expand schemes for the recycling of waste paper.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: In conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, my Department will shortly carry out a survey of local authorities to identify best practice in the recycling of waste paper and other waste streams. In addition, we will be closely monitoring the results of the recycling city project in Sheffield which, among other things, involves the kerbside collection of waste paper. I shall be opening the next phase of this project on 21 November.

  Paper and Board
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to assist environmental initiatives by the British paper and board industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are in regular contact with individual paper and board manufacturers and relevant trade associations with a view to encouraging the use of recycled paper and board. The Government, with leading paper and board manufacturers, held a series of seminars earlier this year throughout the United Kingdom on recycling waste paper for use as newsprint, to which there has been a very positive response.

  Eutrophication
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to commission a study of the eutrophication of ponds, lakes and waterways in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: I do not consider that such a study is required at present because eutrophication is not generally a problem in United Kingdom waters. The National Rivers Authority is responsible in England and Wales for the control of water pollution and the maintenance and improvement of the quality of controlled waters.

  Water Meter
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of the estimated price per gallon of water to be charged after household water meter installation.
  31
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: No. The charge per gallon will depend on the structure of the measured tariff fixed by each water undertaker under the conditions of its instrument of appointment.

  Recycling
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which have implemented one or more recycling initiatives within the past 12 months involving(a) paper, (b) aluminium or (c) glass.

  Mr. Trippier
  We do not at present hold such information centrally. However, I recently launched the National Directory of Recycling Information which lists recycling initiatives, available from Waste Watch, 26 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3HU.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution British research is making to the European Community's effort to select the most practical and internationally acceptable options to conserve the tropical hardwood forests.

  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom has an extensive bilateral programme of assistance on tropical forests which, as the Prime Minister announced on 8 November, has recently been enhanced by a further £100 million. Our principal contribution to EC efforts has been to second a forestry expert to the Commission's development directorate. We of course take a full part in discussions on forestry within the Community, and at the meeting of European Environment Ministers in June 1989 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State supported the redeployment of resources within the Commission towards forestry.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total budget for city grant for the year 1989–90; and if he will publish a table showing what schemes have been approved in the year to date, giving the authority receiving the grant, for what scheme and what proportion of the total cost of the scheme was represented by the grant.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  War Widows
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek powers to give the same remuneration to war widows from world war one and world war two as is paid to Falklands campaign widows.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  War widows receive those pensions to which they are eligible under the provisions of appropriate schemes. All war widows receive a war widow's pension under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security. Pensions may also be payable under the terms of the occupational scheme for the armed forces. The widows of 32
  men who died during, or as a result of, the Falklands campaign are eligible for an attributable forces family pension under that scheme as the result of improvements which were introduced from 31 March 1973 and applied only to those personnel who gave service on or after that date. There are no plans to extend eligibility to those whose service ended before that date.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits payable to war widows under the contributory pension scheme are covered by contributions; and to what extent they are financed by other forms of revenue.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces pension scheme is non-contributory. The cost of forces family pensions, paid to those war widows who are eligible, is met from the funds allocated to the appropriate defence vote. However, subsequent to the appointment of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay in September 1971, it has been the practice of that body to make an adjustment, within the process of determining recommended rates of pay for the armed forces, which takes into account differences in superannuation benefits between those of the armed forces scheme and those of comparators' schemes.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Harrier GR7 aircraft are being brought into service in the next five years; how many aircrews will be trained to fly at low level at night; and how many night-hours each aircrew will be required to fly each year to maintain the required RAF levels of proficiency;

  (2) how many hours at low flying at night have been undertaken in each of the past five years; and what level of increase is anticipated after the Harrier GR7 aircraft is brought into service;

  (3) how many hours of low flying at night were planned to occur in West Germany prior to the West German decision to ban low flying training at night;

  (4) if he will list in the Official Report the areas of the United Kingdom that will be used to train air crews engaged in low level night-time flying exercises in Harrier GR7 aircraft;

  (5) whether the specifications of the Harrier GR7 aircraft requires low level night time training exercises to be undertaken in the area of the Spadeadam Royal Air Force base.

  Mr. Neubert
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Air-Misses
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the investigation by the joint air-miss working group into the incident involving a military aircraft and a civil passenger flight over Tranent on the evening of 2 August.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Official Report of the investigation into this incident is not yet available.

  Chemical Weapons Training
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will order an investigation into the circumstances in which polyethylene glycol was released
  33
  from a Royal Air Force aircraft over the town of Amesbury on an occasion in October; and if he will make it his policy to publish the results;

  (2) what is the damage to private property caused by the release of polyethylene glycol by a Royal Air Force aircraft over the town of Amesbury;

  (3) what was the purpose of spraying troops with polyethylene glycol on the occasion in October when a quantity of this chemical was released over the town of Amesbury;

  (4) what were the chemical constituents of the liquid released by a Royal Air Force aircraft over the town of Amesbury on an occasion in October.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 10 November 1989 at columns 798–99.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the chemical formulae of the substances that are used during chemical weapons training.

  Mr. Neubert
  The MOD does not undertake chemical weapons training. The only materials released from the air as stimulants for chemical and biological defence training are water and polythylene glycol 300.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what health and safety measures are taken to ensure the health of those service personnel involved in chemical weapons training;

  (2) what steps are taken to monitor the health of those service personnel involved in chemical weapons training.

  Mr. Neubert
  All equipment and simulants used for training purposes go through a thorough scrutiny and approval procedure before being cleared for service use, and there is, therefore, no specific reason to monitor service men's health following chemical and biological defence training. However, the health of service personnel is routinely monitored.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the chemical formula of the substance that was discharged by an aircraft operating from the aircraft and armaments establishment at Boscombe Down on 25 October.

  Mr. Neubert
  The chemical training agent discharged from an aircraft operated by A and AEE Boscombe Down on 25 October was polyethylene glycol 300. Its chemical formula is CH2(OH).(CH2O CH2)m.CH2OH, where m may be a 5 or 6.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any(a) injuries or fatalities recorded on and (b) injuries, illnesses or fatalities that have resulted from chemical weapons training.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no recorded illnesses, injuries or fatalities resulting directly from the use of simulants in chemical and biological defence training.

WALES

  Toxic Material (Imports)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he received during the past three months concerning the importation into Wales of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated material; and what inquiries he has undertaken concerning this matter.

  Mr. Grist
  We have received 23 letters.

  Details of imports of PCB wastes are notified to my right hon. Friend under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988.

  Hospital Provision (Porthmadog)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further discussion he now proposes having with Gwynedd health authority concerning the future of hospital provision in the Porthmadog area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend's decision on Gwynedd health authority's proposals for the future of hospital provision in the Porthmadog area was conveyed to the authority in letters of 3 and 22 March 1989 which were copied to the hon. Gentleman. Subject to the outcome of the High Court's consideration of that decision, implementation of their proposals is a matter for Gwynedd health authority.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 1990–91 standard spending assessments for(a) education, (b) under-fives education, (c) primary education, (d) secondary education, (e) post-16 education, and (1) other education, for each local education authority in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh revenue support grant formulae do not form a basis for calculating a notional allocation of standard spending assessment for any particular service. The 1990–91 totals of standard spending assessment are not yet available.

  School Class Sizes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for average class sizes in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) nursery schools for each local education authority in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Details of average class sizes are given in the following table. The information given for primary schools relates to the average size of registered classes. In the case of secondary schools the information given is based on the size of classes actually taught. Information is not collected centrally on class sizes in nursery schools.

  Primary Schools (Average size of registered classes)

  Secondary Schools (Average size of one teacher classes as taught)

  Clwyd

  25·8

  20·1

  Dyfed

  21·8

  18·6

  Gwent

  26·4

  18·6

  35

  Primary Schools (Average size of registered classes)

  Secondary Schools (Average size of one teacher classes as taught)

  Gwynedd

  21·6

  17·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  26·2

  19·6

  Powys

  20·3

  16·3

  South Glamorgan

  26·7

  20·4

  West Glamorgan

  24·8

  19·3

  Nursery Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the percentage of under-fives in nursery schools, by local education authority in Wales in rank order.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information as at January 1989 is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of under fives in Nursery Schools1 2

  Per cent.

  Gwent

  9·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·4

  South Glamorgan

  7·3

  Clwyd

  3·2

  Dyfed

  2·5

  West Glamorgan

  2·5

  1 Aged as at August 1988, excluding rising fives, expressed as a percentage of the number of three and four-year-old population.

  2 There are no nursery schools in Gwynedd or Powys.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the percentage of under-fives in nursery classes, by local education authorities in Wales, in rank order.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information as at January 1989 is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of under fives in nursery classes1

  Per cent.

  West Glamorgan

  52·3

  Clwyd

  40·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  33·5

  Gwent

  25·7

  Powys

  25·3

  Dyfed

  25·0

  South Glamorgan

  22·8

  Gwynedd

  15·2

  1 Aged as at August 1988, excluding rising fives, expressed as a percentage of the three and four-year-old population.

  Infant Classes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the percentage of under-fives in infant classes, by local education authority in Wales, in rank order.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information as at January 1989 is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of under-fives in infant classes1

  Dyfed

  38·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  33·5

  Clwyd

  32·8

  West Glamorgan

  32·7

  36

  Percentage of under-fives in infant classes1

  Gwent

  32·2

  Gwynedd

  30·4

  Powys

  26·1

  South Glamorgan

  24·6

  1 Aged as at August 1988, excluding rising fives, expressed as a percentage of the number of three and four-year-old population.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the training required by primary school teachers for the implementation of the technology component of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have given high priority to the implementation of the national curriculum under the LEA training grant scheme and have allocated £350,000 specifically for the training of teachers in new technologies for 1990–91.

  The Department and the Curriculum Council for Wales will be considering further what is required to implement technology in the national curriculum in the light of the recently completed consultations on the Secretary of State's proposals.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what urgent action he will take to increase the availability of specialist teachers in high schools to meet the requirements of the new curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We are taking the requirements of the national curriculum into account when setting intakes to initial teacher training; in the revision of the criteria for initial teacher training courses; and in deciding on the role and make-up of the LEA in-service training grant scheme and education support grants. The recruitment of teachers for shortage subjects is being helped by the provision of bursaries for students pursuing courses in those subjects. The pilot scheme of incentive supplements for Welsh-speaking graduates is aimed at increasing the pool of teachers capable of teaching through the medium of Welsh.

  School Computers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants are available to provide computers for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and for each type of grant for the last available financial year, if he will state, in separate tables for primary and secondary schools (i) the cash allocation in total and by education authority, (ii) the number of schools that have received a cash allocation by education authority and (iii) the number of computers provided, by education authority.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Current provision of funding to equip primary and secondary schools to use information technology across the curriculum is in the form of education support grant allocated by bid to local education authorities. Provision for an advisory teacher service is also included in the funding. Grant to support eligible expenditure of £1,475,800 was made available in 1988–89 and grant to support eligible expenditure of £1,583,800 is available in the current financial year.
  37
  The tables show the figures for expenditure for each LEA, and figures supplied by LEAs of numbers of computers purchased in 1988–89.

  Figures detailing LEA allocations of ESG to individual schools are not collected centrally.

  1988–89: Expenditure eligible for ESG support by LEA for IT in Schools

  LEA

  ESG allocation, £s

  Including £s for hardware purchase

  Clwyd

  161,200

  51,200

  Dyfed

  228,700

  126,700

  Gwent

  233,100

  108,100

  Gwynedd

  122,400

  47,400

  Mid Glamorgan

  316,900

  153,900

  Powys

  59,500

  21,500

  South Glamorgan

  199,400

  92,400

  West Glamorgan

  154,600

  44,600

  1988–89: Numbers of computers purchased through ESG

  Secondary

  Primary

  Special schools

  Clwyd

  11

  21

  11

  Dyfed

  122

  45

  5

  Gwent

  118

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  32

  25

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  211

  0

  3

  Powys

  20

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  92

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  1

  1—

  1—

  1 Figures not yet supplied.

  Cardiff Bay Development
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy that compensation levels for firms in the Cardiff bay area which are required to move in order that development may proceed are set at levels which make their relocation viable and ensure that existing jobs are not lost to the area;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that grants systems operated by his Department will be used to the best advantage in order to enable existing firms in the Cardiff bay area to (a) stay in business and (b) to create new job opportunities for the future;

  (3) whether he will make it his policy that existing firms and jobs in the Cardiff bay area shall either (a) be retained within the area or (b) be assisted to relocate in or near the area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Compensation to firms required to move within or outside the area of Cardiff Bay development corporation will be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and the Land Compensation Act 1973. This legislation provides for payment to be made in respect of disturbance costs as well as for land and property acquired. If a company considers that an offer made is inadequate it may seek to have the level of compensation determined by the Lands Tribunal, an independent body established by Parliament.

  Within this statutory framework it is the policy of Cardiff Bay development corporation to do whatever it can to protect the interests and the existing employment of firms within its area. The corporation has my fullest support in that. I am also anxious to ensure that, wherever appropriate, firms affected by the redevelopment of Cardiff bay should seize every opportunity to expand. To that end my Department is working closely with the
  38
  corporation to ensure that every advantage is taken of regional selective assistance and other available measures of support to safeguard and create jobs.

  As part of its policy the corporation is taking a range of specific initiatives:

  —the engagement of Cardiff and Vale Enterprise to assist companies with business planning and the preparation of grant applications;

  —making land available to ensure that firms remain within or close to the designated area;

  —operating a scheme of business assistance to provide financial support to existing firms.

  I understand that active discussions are currently taking place with the firms which may be affected by relocation.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call a conference of local authorities, employers and trades unionists to consider how his Department might act in order to obtain better links for north and south Wales to the proposed Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  British Rail has already consulted widely in preparation for its report on Channel tunnel rail services.

  Proposals for road links which will benefit road users travelling between Wales and the Channel tunnel are included in "Roads for Prosperity" published by the Department of Transport and in "Roads in Wales 1989".

  I have had talks with the chairman of British Rail after having had the views of many people interested in this matter.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts he has made to improve the direct access of north and south Wales railway routes to the proposed Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The chairman of British Rail is aware of the importance that my right hon. Friend and I attach to the provision of the best possible rail links between Wales and the Channel tunnel. Officials have taken part in British Rail's consultations on its plan of services for the tunnel. That report is now awaited.

  Connah's Quay (Bypass)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that Clwyd county council's application for transport supplementary grant will be sufficient to ensure the early starting of the Connah's Quay and Shotton bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Clwyd county council's bid for transport support grant in 1990–91 is being considered along with bids from other local highway authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet members of(a) Connah's Quay town council, (b) Shotton town council, (c) Queensferry county council and (d) Sealand town council to discuss the urgent need for the Dee crossing and the Shotton and Connah's Quay bypass.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. This matter was fully discussed when my right hon. Friend met the hon. Gentleman and representatives of Alyn and Deeside district council on 18 October.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet governors of schools of Clwyd local education authority to discuss with them the funding of schools under new legislation with particular reference to staffing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to do so but we are always willing to consider invitations to visit schools in Clwyd and elsewhere.

  Gipsy Caravan Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet members of the Queensferry and Deeside chamber of trade to hear their views concerning gipsy caravan sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  No.

  Mancot Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Friends of Mancot hospital to discuss with them the plans for Mancot hospital consequent upon the opening of Deeside community hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  Plans for the future of Mancot hospital are a matter for Clwyd health authority at this time. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for my right hon. Friend to meet the Friends of 'he hospital to discuss its future.

  Ambulance Stations, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit ambulance stations of Clwyd health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We have no present plans to do so. No visit is required for us to appreciate the role of the ambulance service in the provision of patient care. We would urge the trade unions involved in the present dispute to call off industrial action immediately and return to the negotiating table.

  Health Funding (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the headquarters of Clwyd health authority to hear members' views on funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have no immediate plans to visit Clwyd health authority. I have been fully briefed on the financial position of health authorities in Wales as a result of my Department's annual round of review meetings with authorities in September and a meeting which I had with the chairman of the Welsh health authorities chairmen's committee last week. I am pleased to note that, although authorities are facing higher inflationary pressures than they budgeted for at the start of the financial year, they are taking responsible managerial action to ensure that their expenditure remains under control. I shall he taking account of their present position in determining hospital and community health services provision for 1990–91 about which I expect to make an announcement next month.

  High Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the staff rooms of(a) Connah's Quay, (b) Queensferry, (c) Buckley, (d) Hope, (e) Darland and (f) Argoed high schools to seek members of staff's views of the new Education Act; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We are always willing to consider invitations to visit schools within Clwyd or elsewhere in Wales. There has been and continues to be wide consultation on the implementation of the Education Reform Act and further views will be sympathetically considered.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what access to the countryside in Wales will be included in the proposed green Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government's proposals for reorganisation of the countryside bodies will not affect existing statutory rights of access to the countryside.

  Litter
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to combat the increase in litter in the Principality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The government's proposals for combating litter were set out in the consultation paper "Action on Litter" a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House at the time of publication in July.

  The responses to the paper are being considered at present and, subject to the results, the Government intend to introduce necessary legislation to enact these proposals at the earliest opportunity.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make a statement on the details of the community charge as they affect Welsh districts and boroughs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to him on Monday 6 November (Vol. 159, c. 663–64).

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce the award of transport supplementary grant to Welsh counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We expect to announce the transport grant settlement for 1990–91 shortly.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many waste disposal sites are situated in(a) Newport, (b) Cardiff and (c) Swansea; and how many of these are licensed to take special wastes.

  Mr. Grist
  From the information provided by the waste disposal authorities, the following are the sites licensed:
  41

  Authority

  Number of licensed sites

  Newport

  28

  Cardiff

  20

  Swansea

  24

  Information on the types of waste permitted is held by the authorities, which are under a statutory duty to maintain public registers.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total per capita spending in Wales for the past three years, excluding spending on social security.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest available figures are in the answer my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary gave in his reply of 25 October 1988 (Vol. 139, c.120–29).

  Water Loss
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give a quantified breakdown of the ways in which water is lost by Welsh Water between the reservoir and the consumer;

  (2) what information he has on the reasons why Welsh Water is losing 40 per cent. of the water collected in its reservoirs before reaching the consumer; and what steps he intends to take to bring that percentage loss in line with that of other water companies in England and Wales;

  (3) what percentage of water is lost in the course of distribution by (a) Welsh Water and (b) any other company supplying water in any part in Wales;

  (4) what target has been set for Welsh Water to achieve in order to reduce the percentage loss of water during the course of distribution; and by what date they are to reach that target.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters which are the responsibility of Welsh Water plc. Some information is contained in the pathfinder prospectus, copies of which are in the Library.

  Water Conservation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the statutory provisions which relate to his powers in relation to the conservation of water by water companies operating in Wales and the methods of conservation to which they refer.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Breast Screening
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which National Health Service hospitals are involved in income generation schemes by offering private breast screening services; and(a) what are the names of the private firms with which they are collaborating, (b) what are the charges to the individual women who use the service and (c) who is responsible for monitoring the medical standards and practices of these schemes.
  42
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information is not available in the form requested. My Department is aware of 11 health authorities offering breast screening services for which a charge is made. Two of these are in collaboration with private firms, Medical Diagnostics Ltd. and Priory Medical. In about half the schemes no charge is made to individual women as the costs are met by employers or charities and some are charged only at cost.

  Guidance issued to health authorities in March 1989 specifically asked them to seek advice from my Department where issues of national policy were involved, such as breast and cervical screening. I have now advised health authorities that they should not seek to generate income from such screening.

  Health authorities that developed schemes in advance of that guidance may be bound for the time being by contractual arrangements to provide some screening services additional to those available to National Health Service patients.

  The health authorities concerned are:

  Royal Marsden Hospital Special Health Authority

  Hull

  Leeds Western

  South Bedfordshire

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  City and Hackney

  West Essex

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Maidstone

  Halton

  Wigan

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by location the private nursing homes in the Trent regional health authority; and what arrangements were made for health care organisations to have an input at the planning stage before they were opened.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Tables placed in the Library list the names of private nursing homes registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 in Trent regional health authority, by district health authority.

  Guidance advises registering authorities to identify and seek contact with prospective nursing home owners at the earliest possible stage, to establish a co-operative relationship and assist the applicant to meet the conditions of registration.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what conclusions his Department has reached on the results of the oil seed rape research project funded by Angus district council and Ninewells hospital on the relationship between oil seed rape and allergies, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what research or investigation his Department has made into the health problems connected with the oil seed rape crop; what finance has been allocated to such projects; and what plans he has to develop further the recent research financed by Angus district council and Ninewells hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8 November 1989 to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) at columns 684–85.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what instructions his Department issues to doctors undertaking abortions on foreign women about their aftercare following the abortion;

  (2) what medical formalities are required prior to an abortion for foreign women attending private clinics for termination of pregnancy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As for resident women, abortion is available for a foreign patient if two doctors certify in good faith that the risk to the life or injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant women or the existing children of her family would be greater if the pregnancy continued than if it were terminated. Decisions relating to the clinical care and follow-up of all abortion patients are matters for the individual doctors concerned.

  Approved places are required to make special provision for counselling and aftercare of foreign patients including the provision of interpreters, own-language information leaflets, and discharge letters to the referring doctor in their own language.

  Bed Provision
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the appropriate level of provision per bed of(a) blood gas machines, (b) resuscitation equipment, (c) ventilators and (d) central monitoring systems for heart patients, for general hospitals with acute services in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are matters for decision by the appropriate senior managers of the relevant clinical care facilities, having regard to operating procedures, staffing levels, case mix and other appropriate factors.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase opportunities for advocacy and representation for severely disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 7 November at column 556.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the National Health Service hospitals which he has approved for self-governance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 3 November at columns 389–90. We will not be able to approve any NHS trusts until Parliament has given approval to the necessary legislation. A total of 187 expressions of interest in NHS trust status have been received by the Department.

  Cosmetic Mammary Glands
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds it was decided not to make mammillas an integral part of a cosmetic mammary gland provided by the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Some brands available under the NHS are integral. It is for the consultant responsible to decide, in consultation with the patient, which type of prosthesis to prescribe.

  Community Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial help has been given to each of the London borough councils towards the cost of community care in their boroughs of patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Resources for community care in general are made available from the main programme expenditure of health authorities and local authorities. Central Government support to local authorities is provided through block grant. This is an unhypothecated grant which is allocated as a whole and specific elements within it are not identifiable separately. Individual authorities are responsible for deciding how the total funds available to them are used in the light of local circumstances and legislative requirements. In addition, health authorities are allocated each year specific sums known as joint finance which are in part used to promote a shift from hospital to community care.

  The Government recognise the need to ensure that discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital take place only when adequate services are available for them outside hospital. We propose to introduce a new funding structure for those seeking help from public funds for the cost of care as well as a new specific grant to encourage the development of social care for people with mental illness.

  Rehabilitation Medicine
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time consultants are currently employed within the National Health Service in rehabilitation medicine.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available, as rehabilitation medicine is not currently classified as a separate speciality. It will be separately classified from 1990.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for the last five years for the number of trained paramedics among ambulance personnel shown as a global figure and as a percentage of total ambulance personnel in each ambulance service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These figures are not held centrally.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the 1991 census clearly identifies the number of homeless and those sleeping rough through choice.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is planned to identify separately numbers of people camping and people sleeping rough on census night, and to distinguish between the two groups. Like everyone else, people in each of these groups will be asked if the place where they are enumerated is their usual address.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make provision in the 1991 census for an organised body rather than the police and voluntary organisations to count the numbers of homeless sleeping rough.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is planned that the enumeration of people sleeping rough will be carried out as part of the general census enumeration by people appointed for the purpose by the registrars general.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use a simplified form for the 1991 census for those who are homeless.

  Mr. Freeman
  In addition to questions about household circumstances, asked only about private households, it is planned that everyone in Great Britain will be asked to answer the same set of questions about himself or herself. There will, however, be special provisions for particular cases. One of these provisions will enable a return for a person sleeping rough who is not capable of completing his or her own return to be made by someone who is capable. Another provision will enable any person sleeping rough to authorise someone else to complete the return on his or her behalf.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans in the 1991 census to identify the number of those living at addresses care of people other than their own family.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is planned that numbers of people staying in communal establishments will be identified separately, as will numbers of people staying with private households who are not related to the person first mentioned on the census form for that household.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the draft 1991 Census Order will be laid before Parliament; whether an ethnic group question will be included in the proposed context of the census; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have today laid before Parliament the draft Order in Council for a census to be taken in Great Britain on Sunday 21 April 1991. This order specifies the persons by whom and with respect to whom returns are to be made and the topics on which questions are to be asked.

  The Government's proposals for the 1991 census of Great Britain were published in a White Paper (Cm. 430) in July 1988. All the topics that were then proposed are included in the draft order.
  46
  The White Paper stated that the Government proposed to include a question on ethnic group in the 1989 census test and to study the results before deciding whether such a question should be included in the final plans for the 1991 census. The responses to the ethnic group question in this voluntary test have now been assessed.

  A follow-up survey, carried out as part of the test, showed that the question commanded a high degree of acceptance from all the main ethnic groups. Less than one half of 1 per cent. of households refused to take part in the voluntary test because of the ethnic group question. While 7 per cent. did voice objections when prompted, most of these had nevertheless answered the question. The proportion of black people who voiced objections when prompted (1 in 5) was higher than that of white and of Asian people (1 in 20) but only 1 per cent. of black respondents refused to take part in the test because of the ethnic group question. Few spontaneous comments adverse to the question were received from the public. The accuracy of answers to the question was acceptable.

  These results indicate that the public at large, in all ethnic groups, is ready to accept and respond to this question in the census. The Government have therefore included the ethnic group question in the draft order for the 1991 census.

  We hope that this decision will be welcomed by the many people and organisations who have expressed a need for the kind of statistical information the answers to this question and others will provide. Statistical information on ethnic group, together with that on, for example, housing, employment and age structure, will help central and local government and health authorities allocate resources and plan programmes, taking account of the needs of each group. It will also help employers and those providing services identify and tackle areas of racial disadvantage.

  Copies of a summary of the ethnic group question results from the census test have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies of a census newsletter, containing a list of the proposed questions and their uses, and illustrations of how the questions will look on the census form, will be placed in the Libraries shortly.

  Double Prescription Charges
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the drugs on which a double prescription charge is levied.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The general rule is that each drug or appliance which is supplied attracts a single prescription charge. If more than one drug is supplied, whether packaged together or separately, more than one charge is payable.

  Nurses (Grants)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Western Isles,Official Report, 7 November, column 827, whether nurses on undergraduate courses will have their grants frozen and replaced with loans.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Students on nursing degree courses, like other students in full-time higher education, will have access to the additional resource provided by the top-up loan.

  Mail Order Optical Services
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that the rules for supply by mail order of spectacles, and contact lenses by or under the supervision of a doctor or an optician, are fully understood and complied with; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning greater enforcement of the rules governing the sale of mail order of contact lenses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958 clearly states that the sale of any optical appliance, including contact lenses, must be either effected by or supervised by a registered medical practitioner or registered optician. Anyone failing to comply with these requirements would be in breach of the terms of the Act and committing a criminal offence. It is the responsibility of the General Optical Council to ensure the standard and integrity of the ophthalmic professions and it would be for them to take action in such circumstances.

  In addition, the General Optical Council also issues its own rules concerning the conduct and standard of the profession. This includes clear instructions on the sale of optical appliances. All medical practitioners and opticians must accept and agree to comply with these rules on registration. Failure to do so is a disciplinary offence and a matter for the General Optical Council.

  Birmingham Children's Hospital
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's heart operations have been performed in the Birmingham children's hospital since 1 April; and at what cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  From April to October this year, 206 open heart operations were performed at the Birmingham children's hospital. The cost of these operations cannot be disaggregated from the hospital's total spending.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on(a) the number of children's heart operations scheduled to take place in the Birmingham children's hospital in the financial year 1989 to 1990 and (b) the financial resources allocated for those operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The target for the number of open heart operations in Birmingham children's hospital in 1989–90 is 320. Financial resources required for those operations cannot be disaggregated from the total financial resources required by the hospital.

  Central Manchester Health Authority
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place copies of his recent correspondence with Central Manchester health authority and with its chairman concerning self-governing status in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Trafford Health Authority
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Trafford health authority about proposals to reduce service levels in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.
  48
  Mr. Freeman
  The Trafford health authority is responsible for planning hospital and community services in the districts within the resources made available to it by North West regional health authority. These resources have not yet been announced for 1990–91 but, as is usual, they have been asked to develop plans based on resource assumptions. They are required to maintain the level of services in 1990–91 and to ensure a balance of income and expenditure. It is for the Trafford health authority to formulate its plans and to submit them to the North Western regional health authority for agreement as part of the regional plan.

  Asthma Clinics
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether asthma clinics will be included in the envisaged list of health promotion clinics that will attract payment if provided by general practitioners, pursuant to the scheme in "Working for Patients."

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under arrangements to be introduced from 1 April 1990, family practitioner committees (FPCs) will have authority to approve health promotion clinics for remuneration purposes. Within the provisions of the statement of fees and allowances, FPCs will have discretion to decide which clinics, including asthma clinics, qualify.

  "Registration: A Modern Service"
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in response to his Green Paper, "Registration: A Modern Service" (Cm. 531); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The consultation period on the Green Paper closed last March and it attracted more than 600 responses. There was a widespread welcome for its proposals for more structured management arrangements for the registration service, greater public choice in the area of civil marriage, and an opening up of historic registration records. Some new suggestions were received for changing and modernising the registration service, and these have received consideration. The Government are now formulating their views, which will be published in a White Paper early next year.

  Karl McGoldrick
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the handling of the Karl McGoldrick case and child protection services in Cumbria.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Northern regional health authority is today publishing a report of an inquiry into the handling of the case of Karl McGoldrick chaired by Professor Anderson. I am grateful to him and his fellow inquiry members for the work they have put into the inquiry. The report identifies a number of serious shortcomings in the way in which the case was handled in 1986 and makes recommendations for the way in which these shortcomings can be avoided in future.

  We are also publishing today the report of an inspection earlier this year by the social services inspectorate of child protection services in Cumbria. This report establishes that significant improvements have been

  49
  made in the services since the death of Karl McGoldrick, and identifies a number of further improvements which need to be made. The inspectorate will be following up these points as part of its normal programme of inspections.

  Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Facilities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of accident and emergency facilities in the Islington, Hackney, Haringey and Bloomsbury authorities in respect of major accident procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: After any major incident all the hospitals involved automatically review their procedures and update them according to any lessons learnt.

  All the major incident casualty receiving hospitals in Islington, City and Hackney, Haringey and Bloomsbury district health authorities have recently revised or are currently revising their major incident procedures and all expect to have issued a revised programme guide by early in the new year.

  Chemicals and Pesticides
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has issued any guidance to the Departments of Health and Social Security about their use of wood-preserving chemicals and pesticides.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 November 1989:] Advice has been issued to all DH and DSS offices on the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) which came into force on 1 October 1989. Contractors using either pesticides or wood-preserving chemicals on DH/SS premises will be required to comply with both the COSHH Regulations and the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners reside in the parliamentary constituency of Stockton, South; and what is the total amount dispensed in pensions for the current year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information about the numbers of, or the amount paid to, retirement pensioners residing in a particular locality is not recorded. As at 31 March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the amount of retirement pension paid in Great Britain was £18·9 billion.

  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what evidence he has received from(a) Age Concern England, (b) the National Care Homes Association, (c) the Elderly Accommodation Counsel and (d) the Association of Charity Officers, on the cost of private and voluntary residential care for elderly people; and if he will publish that evidence;

  (2) what evidence he has received from (a) the Abbeyfield Society, (b) the BEN Motor and Allied Trades
  50
  Benevolent Fund, (c) the National Federation of Housing Associations, (d) the Independent Hospitals Association, (e) the Royal United Beneficent Association, (f) Methodist Homes for the Aged and (g) Counsel and Care for the Ederly, of the cost of private and voluntary residential care for elderly people; and if he will publish that evidence;

  (3) what evidence he has received from (a) the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, (b) the Occupational Benevolent Funds Alliance, (c) Brendoncare, (d) East Wansdyke Advice Network, (e) Oxfordshire Welfare Rights and (f) London Homes for the Elderly, of the cost of private and voluntary residential care for elderly people; and if he will publish that evidence.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We receive a considerable number of views and representations from a variety of interested organisations and individuals who are entitled to have their communications treated as confidential. For this reason, it is not our practice to publish material sent to us, though the organisations and individuals concerned are free to do so if they wish.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been allowed on the independent living fund in the last available period; what was the total number of applications made; and if he will show the claims allowed in bands of £25.

  Mr. Scott
  The first annual report of the trustees of the independent living fund was published on 6 November and contains information based on a sample of the caseload for the first year of the fund's operation. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  From 1 April 1989 to 31 October 1989 a further 7,132 applications were received by the fund, with 1,677 of these resulting in payment by 31 October 1989. A breakdown of the fund's payments at 8 November 1989 into bands of £25 is as follows:

  Weekly payments £

  Number of clients

  0– 24·99

  532

  25– 49·99

  618

  50– 74·99

  354

  75– 99·99

  205

  100–124·99

  96

  125–149·99

  76

  150–174·99

  57

  175–199·99

  36

  200–224·99

  27

  225–249·99

  11

  250–274·99

  14

  275–299·99

  7

  300–324·99

  5

  325–349·99

  4

  350–374·99

  1

  375–399·99

  2

  400–424·99

  2

  425–499·99

  4

  Total caseload

  2,051

  Disability
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued to his Department's local offices regarding eligibility of disabled 16 and 17-years-olds for income support.

  Mr. Scott
  Guidance is contained in the adjudication officer's guide. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve training to local social security offices on benefits available to disabled young people.

  Mr. Scott
  All local offices have staff trained to answer inquiries and give advice about social security benefits for the disabled, including disabled young people. Training material is regularly reviewed, revised and updated to take account of changes and improvements to disability benefits. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind perhaps he would write to me.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to include all former carers in his Department's regulations defining circumstances when the value of a property can be ignored in assessment for income support when an elderly person has entered residential care where such former carers will be rendered homeless by the sale of the property.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Carers may benefit from the existing disregards for property in the circumstances described in the reply to the hon. Member on 4 July 1989 at columns 139–40. We have no plans, at present, to change that policy.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he intends to consult disability organisations on their views on how to improve the social security system for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 23 October at columns 341–42.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in his review of disability benefits, he will make provision to help people who are blind with their additional mobility costs.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 25 October our intention to extend mobility allowance to people who are deaf and blind. The change will give £26·25 a week more to some 3,000 people. Further proposals concerning disability benefits will be announced in the next few months.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his review of disability benefits will draw on independent advice; and when he will announce a timetable for the review.

  Mr. Scott
  The OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain constitute the most independent and extensive 52
  investigation into and of the circumstances of disabled people, and they have attracted a large number of comments from individuals and organisations representing disabled people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 25 October our intention within the next few months to bring forward proposals drawing on the survey results and the comments received. These will be aimed at improving the balance and structure of social security benefits for disabled people.

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by each charging authority in England the income level at which(a) a single person aged under 25 years, (b) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a single pensioner, (d) a pensioner couple, and (e) a couple with two children, all with no savings, would lose entitlement to community charge rebate assuming the Department of the Environment's illustrative community charge figures for 1990–91 published on 7 November.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by his Department's regions the number of young people aged 16 and 17 years who have claimed a social security crisis loan since April 1988, to enable them to gain accommodation, and the number of claims granted.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of crisis loan awards by region and by local offices are available in the Library. Statistical data concerning the ages of applicants are not collected.

  Voluntary Unemployment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received a report on the research on penalties for voluntary unemployment commissioned by his Department: and when he expects to publish it.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 8 November at columns 672–73.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received the Government Actuary's quinquennial report on the National Insurance Fund; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet received the report of the Government Actuary and now expects that it will be available early in the new year.

  War Disability Pensions
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which social security benefits(a) are and (b) are not restricted because payment of a war disability pension is taken into account when assessing relevant income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  War disablement pensions are taken into account as income only in the income-related
  53
  benefits—income support, family credit and housing benefit—after £5 has been disregarded. This statutory disregard will be doubled to £10 from next April, a change which will also apply to community charge benefit.

  Local authorities are responsible for administering housing benefit and community charge benefit. They have discretion to disregard more of war disablement pensions in calculating entitlement, but the cost of exercising this discretion has to be borne by the local authority itself.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when, and in what way, he intends to give effect to his recent announcement to end the restriction on availability of attendance allowance for severely disabled children under two years old; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The lower age limit for entitlement to attendance allowance will he abolished with effect from next April. The necessary regulations will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Injuries to employees in power industries in Great Britain reported to enforcing authorities.

  Industry

  5 Fatal Injuries (1978–1985 and 1986–87— 1987–88)

  5 6 Major Injuries (1981–1985 and 1986–1987— 1987–88)

  7 Over 3 Day Injuries (1986–87 —1987–88)

  Nuclear Power Generating 1

  5

  41

  103

  Coal Mining 2

  359

  5,360

  19,453

  Off-shore Installations for Oil and Gas Extraction 3

  81

  592

  1,144

  Gas Production and Distribution 4

  4

  395

  4,916

  1 Reported to HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  2 Reported to HSE's Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries. Includes injuries in the open-cast coal mining sector except for over three day injuries occuring in 1986–87 for which data is not available.

  3 Reported to the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy.

  4 Reported to HSE's Factory Inspectorate.

  5 Excludes injuries occurring during the period 1 January to 31 March 1986.

  6 The Major injury category was introduced by the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurencies Regulations, 1980 (NADOR) on 1 January 1981. The data includes injuries reported under these Regulations and under the widened definition employed under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR), introduced 1 April 1986.

  7 Injuries causing absence from work for more than three days reported under RIDDOR. Data for earlier years are not available or not compiled on a comparable basis.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West on 28 July,Official Report, column 1045, what information is collected about disqualification from unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Eggar
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities. These are firstly an adjudication officer, on appeal a social security appeal tribunal, and on further appeal, on a point of law only, a social security commissioner.

  Analyses of adjudication officers' decisions are published quarterly by the Department of Social Security, under the title "Unemployment Benefit Statistics, Quarterly Analysis of Decisions of Adjudication Officers".

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many standard rate taxpayers receive child benefit, excluding those on family credit; how many higher rate taxpayers receive child benefit; and what is the cost of paying child benefit to such families in each case;

  (2) how much he would save by withdrawing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: The number of families in receipt of child benefit, excluding those on family credit, who are standard rate taxpayers is estimated for 1989–90 as 4·5 million, with a child benefit cost of approximately £3 billion. The estimate of the number of families paying higher rate tax is 0·5 million, with a child benefit cost of around £300 million.

EMPLOYMENT

  Nuclear Generation (Safety)
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers in the nuclear generating industry have been killed or injured since the programme started; and what are the corresponding figures for the coal, oil and gas industries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is provided in the table.

  These show the numbers of adjudication officers' decisions in each category of question of doubt, together with the number of cases allowed, and the number disallowed or disqualified. These publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in the West Midlands region were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit during the period 1 January to 31 March because they were considered to have left their employment voluntarily without just cause and successfully appealed against disqualification.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 July 1989 at column 1050. The number of persons who successfully appeal against the decision to disqualify unemployment benefit because they were
  55
  considered to have left their employment voluntarily without just cause are not separately identified from other claimants who successfully appeal against the decision of an adjudication officer.

  Key Training
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees of his Department, and of what grades, have been seconded to Key Training of 10 Eaton place, Reading, in each of the last five years; and how many of these have since left the Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been no such secondments in the last five years.

  Tourism
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the top 10 tourist attractions in Cambridgeshire in numbers visiting or attending; and if he will indicate the numbers in each instance for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures for the English and East Anglia tourist boards show the following numbers visiting attractions in Cambridgeshire.

  Number of visits

  1986

  King's College Chapel

  1750,000

  Imperial War Museum, Duxford

  360,000

  Fitzwilliam Museum

  205,000

  Wimpole Home Farm

  77,474

  Nene Valley Railway

  168,489

  Wimpole Valley

  61,131

  Anglesey Abbey

  58,937

  University Botanic Garden

  155,000

  Peakirk Wildlife Trust

  51,315

  Kettle's Yard

  40,000

  1987

  King's College Chapel

  1750,000

  Imperial War Museum, Duxford

  396,000

  Fitzwilliam Museum

  260,000

  Linton Zoo

  180,000

  Wimpole Home Farm

  69,780

  Anglesey Abbey

  57,191

  University Botanic Garden

  155,000

  Wimple Hall

  54,336

  Peakirk Wildlife Trust

  54,336

  Willersmill Fish Farm and Wild Animal Sanctuary

  138,000

  1988

  Kings College Chapel

  1750,000

  Imperial War Museum, Duxford

  376,302

  Fitzwilliam Museum

  249,000

  Wimpole Home Farm

  91,529

  Linton Zoo

  180,000

  Nene Valley Railway

  168,000

  Wimpole Hall

  62,281

  Anglesey Abbey

  61,257

  Peakirk Wildlife Trust

  55,350

  University Botanic Garden

  55,000

  1 Estimates.

  Note: 1986 visitor numbers are not available for Linton Zoo and 1987 figures are not available for Nene Valley Railway.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employmemt what specific steps he is taking to reduce unemployment on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department, through its employment service and Training Agency, operates a wide range of employment, enterprise and training measures, which are all available in Merseyside, as elsewhere.

  In addition, as in other inner city areas, a number of initiatives have been adopted aimed at helping unemployed people in Liverpool to find employment, and at encouraging employers to recruit local unemployed people. Since April the Liverpool city action team has approved 26 employment and training projects.

  During the 12 months to September 1989 unemployment in the Merseyside county has fallen by 20,294—18·9 per cent. of the September 1988 figure.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) by what means the availability of the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme is made known to disabled people and their potential employers;

  (2) by what means the availability of the job introduction scheme is made known to disabled people and their potential employers.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information about the adaptations to premises and equipment and job introduction schemes is made available to disabled people and their potential or actual employers through employment service staff, particularly disablement resettlement officers and, in the case of employers, the disablement advisory service, leaflets describing the schemes, and other organisations who advise people with disabilities. The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people, of which 120,000 copies have been distributed, also describes the schemes.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people benefit from the adaptations to the premises and equipment scheme in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of disabled people who benefited from the adaptation to premises and equipment scheme in each of the last 10 years was:

  Number

  1979–80

  94

  1980–81

  83

  1981–82

  93

  1982–83

  117

  1983–84

  170

  1984–85

  145

  1985–86

  165

  1986–87

  253

  1987–88

  252

  1988–89

  247

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people received assistance through the job introduction scheme in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of people with disabilities who received assistance through the job introduction scheme in each of the past 10 years was:

  Number

  1979–80

  1,504

  1980–81

  1,072

  1981–82

  1,434

  57

  Number

  1982–83

  1,295

  1983–84

  1,850

  1984–85

  2,033

  1985–86

  1,828

  1986–87

  1,460

  1987–88

  1,629

  1988–89

  2,090

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disablement resettlement officers were employed by his Department in each of the years 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  In April 1989, a total of 488 members of staff in the employment service were undertaking disablement resettlement officer duties, of whom 333 were doing so full time. I regret that comparable figures are not available for previous years.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were registered as disabled under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 in each of the years 1978 to 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of people registered under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 in April of each of the years from 1978 to 1989 were:

  Numbers

  1978

  494,877

  1979

  482,006

  1980

  470,588

  1981

  460,178

  1982

  447,259

  1983

  433,177

  1984

  420,475

  1985

  404,170

  1986

  389,273

  1987

  383,439

  1988

  374,238

  1989

  366,768

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the underspending of amounts estimated for the job introduction scheme to assist people with disability to seek employment in 10 of the last years;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the underspending of amounts estimated for the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme to assist people with disabilities in seven of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  In estimating each year expenditure on the special schemes for people with disabilities, the Department seeks to ensure that provision is adequate to meet likely demand. That can inevitably result in overprovision for particular schemes. The Department is able to use funds not needed for a particular scheme to meet the demand arising on the other schemes. Over the 10 years 1979–80 to 1988–89, expenditure on the job introduction scheme increased from £297,201 to £614,000, on the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme from £50,000 to £423,000 and on all the special schemes together from £796,961 to £5,668,949. This very substantial increase in expenditure demonstrates the success of the disablement advisory service and other departmental staff in making the help available more widely known to employers and people with disabilities.
  58
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the training period for disablement resettlement officers; and how this has changed during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The current training period for disablement resettlement officers is six months. This includes attending national training courses, local project work, use of self-learning packs and on-the-job coaching. Between 1975 and 1983 the training programme for DROs was seven weeks, mainly devoted to national training courses.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which organisations of disabled people he has consulted and which ones he intends to consult before determining future Government policy towards the operation of the quota scheme for disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The quota scheme is among the matters being considered in the internal review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. In conducting the review, account has been taken of views expressed previously by a wide range of organisations and individuals. We intend to seek comments from all major organisations of and for people with disabilities on the consultative document which will be published on completion of the review. Copies of this document will also be available to others who express an interest, and their comments will be welcomed.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to announce the conclusions of the ministerial review of employment provision for disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: The review is at an advanced stage. The consultative document which will follow the review will be published as soon as possible.

  New Claimants (Cumnock)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current establishment, at each grade, of the unemployment benefit office at Cumnock; how many deal directly with interviewing of new claimants, what representations he has received concerning the lack of staff to deal with claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 November 1989, c. 307]: I regret that the information given in my reply of 2 November was incorrect due to one staff member being listed twice. The correct information is as follows:

  The number of staff in each grade is as follows:

  Number

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  Executive Officer

  13

  Administrative Officer

  14

  Administrative Assistant

  25

  1 Of which 1 is an Administrative Officer on temporary promotion.

  2 Of which 1 is a Casual Employee.

  One executive officer deals directly with new claimants, with a second executive officer having an element of interviewing within his post. Area management met the trade union side on 2 October to discuss area issues including staffing requirements. It has subsequently been agreed that the third executive officer post would be filled on a permanent basis.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the collection of the community charge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The responsibility for collecting community charges lies with local authorities. Indications are however that good progress is being made in collection with over 96 per cent. of people having paid in some areas.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of persons, expressed as a percentage of those liable, who have paid or are paying the poll tax in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the chairmen of(a) British Nuclear Fuels plc and (b) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority regarding the future management and ownership of the nuclear power stations in Scotland after vesting day under the terms of the Electricity Act.

  Mr. Lang
  There have been no such consultations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consultations he has carried out with the chairman-designate of Scottish Nuclear Ltd. about the future management and ownership of Scottish nuclear power stations after vesting day under the terms of the Electricity Act.

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board regarding the future management and ownership of nuclear power stations in Scotland after vesting day under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairmen of the South of Scotland electricity board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the chairman-designate of Scottish Nuclear Limited on 8 November to discuss these matters. There have also been regular and full discussions of these matters between my officials and the boards.

  1989 Landings of sand-eels from ICES Division Via by United Kingdom vessels

  Fishing effort

  Base district

  Vessels involved

  Landings tonnes

  Days absent

  Hours fished

  Fraserburgh

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Stornoway

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen, Macduff, Mallaig, Orkney

  4

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  15

  18,785

  308

  2,313

  Sea Lice
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of ctenolabrus rupestris, the gold sinny wrasse, as the alternative to pesticides as a means of removing sea lice from salmon in fish farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The possible use of gold sinny wrasse to control sea lice infestation in farmed salmon is being investigated in trials by the Institute of Fishery Technology Research in Norway and in Scotland by the Sea Fish Industry Authority's sea farming unit in conjunction with the salmon farming industry. Preliminary results in aquarium observations and small-scale field trials with wrasse taken from the wild suggest that numbers of sea lice on farmed salmon are reduced in enclosures shared by wrasse.

  The viability of this method for large-scale and long-term control of sea lice is uncertain as yet. Sea cage trials are still at a relatively early stage but the results of current work will be of considerable interest.

  Investigation of other possible alternative controls on sea lice is also in progress. In particular, the Scottish Salmon Growers Association have commissioned the Institute of Aquaculture at the university of Stirling to investigate alternative treatment methods and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is co-ordinating a large-scale project, part-funded by the European Communities research programme into possible development of a vaccine treatment. It is not possible to say if or when positive results or practical methods of treatment might emerge from these investigations.

  Female General Practitioners
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many female general practitioners there are in practice in Scotland; and how many there were in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given on 20 October 1989 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray).

  Sand-eels
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles, 4 April,Official Report, column 160, if he will state the size of the sand-eel catches in ICES Division VIa in 1989, the amount of fishing effort directed towards sand-eel fishing, the percentage of the catch by weight made up of O-group and I-group fish, and the home ports of vessels concerned.

  Mr. Lang
  The information available is set out in the table. Data on the breakdown of catches into age groups are not yet available.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many construction industry workers were unemployed in Scotland at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There is no analysis of the monthly unemployment count by occupation. However, the labour force survey provides information on the previous occupation of those who are unemployed. The latest information, from the 1988 labour force survey, shows that in spring 1988, on the basis of the ILO definition, there were an estimated 20,000 unemployed persons in the construction industry in Scotland.

  The Scottish construction industry has prospered well in 1989 with orders and output for the first half of the year at the highest levels since 1978 and 1980, respectively. Orders in the first half of 1989 were up 26·6 per cent. in real terms on those of the same period in 1988 and point to continued strong growth of output and improving employment prospects over the next 12 months.

  The latest Building Employer's Confederation state of trade inquiry shows that a net 73 per cent. of Scottish firms expect an increase in their workload over the coming year.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of unemployment of young people in Scotland at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lang
  In July 1989, the latest date for which the information is available, there were 72,740 young people aged between 18 and 24 unemployed in Scotland. In the past two years the number of unemployed in this age group in Scotland has fallen by more than 32,000, a drop of almost one third.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce unemployment in the construction industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no employment measures specifically directed at the construction industry in Scotland. The Government aim to help all unemployed people take advantage of the opportunities that exist through job clubs, job start, restart and travel-to-interview schemes. As part of their usual services, jobcentres display vacancies for all industries. In addition, employment training enables unemployed people to gain and update the skills they need to compete in the labour market.

  Sheepmeat Quotas
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact he assesses the proposed European Community proposals for sheepmeat quotas will have in the Highland areas of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no Community proposals for sheepmeat quotas. The new sheepmeat regime agreed by the Council of Ministers in July will however introduce a headage limit on the payment of ewe premium as from 1 January 1990. Producers in the less-favoured areas (LFAs) will be able to receive full premium on their first 1,000 eligible ewes and premium paid at 50 per cent. on any additional ewes; there 62
  is no upper limit on the number of ewes on which premium may be claimed. In 1988 some 696 of the 15,016 producers in Scotland's LFAs would have been affected by the headage limit. However, individual members of groups, associations or other forms of co-operation between producers may qualify for individual headage limits. The Government secured a commitment from the Council of Ministers that this provision would extend to partnerships in Scots law. Until the 1990 ewe premium application forms are returned it will not be possible to say how many Scottish producers have been affected by the headage limit.

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whan he intends to reply to the letter of 14 October from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North concerning the conduct of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my letter to him dated 9 October. I have nothing further to add to that.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to review section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986 with regard to drift net fishing.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 October to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Threatening Telephone Calls
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider strengthening the Scottish criminal law against persons making anonymous and threatening or abusive telephone calls; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Any person identified as having made such calls may be prosecuted for an offence under the Telecommunications Act 1984, where the maximum penalty would be a £400 fine. In serious cases, such a person may be prosecuted for any one or more of a range of common law offences, for which, if taken on indictment before the High Court, the maximum penalties would be an unlimited fine and life imprisonment. I consider these sanctions to be adequate.

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are, for each year since 1979, the total subsidies, direct or indirect, given to farmers in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detail of direct subsidy payments is given in the table. The figures include the estimated Scottish share of market support expenditure incurred by the intervention board for agricultural produce. They exclude educational, advisory, research and development services provided by, among others, the Scottish agricultural colleges and Scottish agricultural research institutes and the Department. Information on indirect subsidies, for example, the benefit of exemption from rating, is either not available or could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  63

  Assistance to Scottish Farmers

  Year

  Amount £ million

  11989–90

  240·3

  1988–89

  243·9

  1987–88

  229·1

  1986–87

  188·4

  1985–86

  274·6

  1984–85

  220·0

  1983–84

  209·6

  1982–83

  164·2

  1981–82

  123·5

  1980–81

  129·3

  1979–80

  80·0

  1Estimated.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total per capita spending in Scotland for the past three years, excluding spending on social security.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest available figures are in the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 25 October 1988, at columns 120–29.

  SSEB
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board; what matters were discussed; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board on 8 November to discuss the future ownership of nuclear power stations.

  GPs' Salaries
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the salary band for general practitioners in Scotland, showing the highest paid and the lowest paid.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  GPs are not paid on a salary band, but are independent contractors, in contract with health boards to provide general medical services. Their target average remuneration is set by the Government each year on the recommendation of the doctors and dentists review body, and the figure for the current year is £31,105. Information about payments to individual doctors is not held centrally, but I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Capercaillie
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the current population of capercaillie; and if he has any plans to arrest their decline.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 October 1989]: I am informed that on the best available estimate, the current population of capercaillie is in excess of 2,000 birds. However, as the species is not censused over its entire range, the exact figure is not known. The Forestry Commission has recently funded a three-year research contract with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. This study is investigating how capercaillie use non-native
  64
  coniferous plantations and will aim to produce guidelines on ways in which the quality of plantations can be improved to provide a better habitat for the species.

  Nurses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 preceding year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The current nursing staff establishment of health boards is not held centrally. The total number of nursing staff in post, including qualified and unqualified staff and those in training, is shown in table 1. Information about the number of nursing staff leaving the NHS is available only for qualified staff and relates to the year ending 30 September 1988. This information is shown in table 2. The total includes some nurses who left to join health authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Table 1

  Total nursing staff, 31 March 1989 (provisional)

  Health Board

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  5,668

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,034

  Borders

  1,378

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,305

  Fife

  4,021

  Forth Valley

  4,112

  Grampian

  7,345

  Greater Glasgow

  17,917

  Highland

  2,794

  Lanarkshire

  6,318

  Lothian

  10,871

  Orkney

  233

  Shetland

  263

  Tayside

  6,911

  Western Isles

  382

  CSA

  277

  Scotland

  74,829

  Table 2

  Qualified nurses leaving National Health Service in Scotland, year ending 30 September 1988

  Health Board

  Leavers

  Argyll and Clyde

  254

  Ayrshire and Arran

  238

  Borders

  89

  Dumfries and Galloway

  124

  Fife

  221

  Forth Valley

  198

  Grampian

  445

  Greater Glasgow

  806

  Highland

  166

  Lanarkshire

  313

  Lothian

  777

  Orkney

  11

  Shetland

  24

  Tayside

  351

  Western Isles

  28

  CSA

  2

  Scotland

  4,047

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of applications received by local authorities for housing improvement grants(a) before 1 April 1984 and (b) thereafter.
  65
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: Information on the number of improvement grant applications received by local authorities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources have been made available to provide housing improvement grants for applications made(a) before 1 April 1990 and (b) after 1 April 1990, in 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what is the expected allocation in 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: Capital expenditure allocations to enable councils to provide house improvement grants are not made in respect of applications made during particular periods. It is for councils to decide how to target the available resources and how to exercise their discretion in respect of applications for discretionary grants. The one exception is that we have in recent years made extra resources available to assist in the clearance of backlogs of applications lodged before 31 March 1984 when a different grant regime operated. I expect to announce allocations for 1990–91 in the usual way later in the year.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his current estimate of the Exchequer proceeds from the sale of the Scottish electricity companies, excluding their nuclear assets, net of flotation and advertising costs.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: The market value of the Scottish electricity companies will depend on a wide range of factors, including the profitability of the companies, their capital structures, their future prospects and the state of the market. It is, therefore, too early to estimate the likely proceeds for the sale of the companies.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of tax losses to be carried forward in the balance sheets of the Scottish electricity companies under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: The tax position of the Scottish electricity boards is a matter for the boards and the Inland Revenue and is currently the subject of negotiations. The level of tax losses available to the future Scottish electricity companies will be determined in accordance with schedule 11 to the Electricity Act.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most up-to-date estimate on the level of capital write-offs to be made to the balance sheets of the Scottish electricity boards and their successor companies, under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: Asset values in the accounts of the Scottish electricity boards are a matter for the boards and their respective auditors. The structure of the balance sheets of the successor companies to the Scottish electricity boards has not yet been decided.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for capping the liability of Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to decommissioning and nuclear waste management costs after vesting day under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made to the House on 9 November by my right hon. and learned Friend.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subject he discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.

  Mr. Curry
  My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association at separate meetings on 22 November 1988. Among the issues discussed were the current state of the negotiations on the European Community's spirit drinks regulation and improving the competitive position for the industry in Japan.

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total acreage of sugar beet grown in the United Kingdom in the current year.

  Mr. Curry
  We expect a total of 194,000 ha of sugar beet to be harvested in the current campaign, out of a planted area of 195,674 ha.

  Egg Marketing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food (1) how many retail premises were visited by the regional egg marketing inspector during his visit to Northumberland on 1 and 2 November; and what was the cost to public funds of the travel involved in this visit;

  (2) whether his Department received a request from Northumberland county council trading standards department prior to 1 November for assistance relating to the enforcement of egg marketing rules in respect of the Good Life Shop, Wooler.

  Mr. Curry
  The regional egg marketing inspector visited Northumberland on 1 and 2 November as part of his normal duties. As such, his itinerary included visits to the Ministry divisional office at Newcastle, a meeting with the county council's trading standards department at Alnwick, and providing training at an authorised packing centre in addition to the advisory visit to the Good Life Shop, Wooler. That last mentioned visit was not made as the result of a specific request from the trading standards department, although the inspectorate routinely gives assistance to trading standards departments, and no other retail premises were visited on this occasion.

  Poultry and Egg Testing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the order setting out revised rules for the testing of small poultry flocks was printed; on what date it
  67
  came into force; and how many printed copies have so far been made available to local authorities, the trade and the public.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Poultry Laying Flocks (Testing and Registration etc) Order 1989 and the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries (Registration and Testing) Order 1989 came into effect on 26 October 1989. Printed copies will be available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office shortly. Copies of the orders as made available to the House and information leaflets have been sent to the local authority associations and 61 other interested organisations. Copies are also available on request from local Ministry offices.

  Gumboro Disease (Poultry)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement about the current incidence of gumboro disease in poultry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Latest estimates suggest that the virulent strain of gumboro disease that first manifested itself in October 1988 is killing 15 per cent. or more of the birds in affected flocks. Total losses to the broiler sector from the disease since May this year are in excess of 5 million birds. It is believed that more than 500,000 replacement pullets have also been lost.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent the spread of the viral disease gumboro in poultry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is liaising fully with the industry on this urgent problem. Two companies have now been authorised by the veterinary medicines directorate to conduct trials on new live vaccines. The granting of product licences for these vaccines will depend on receiving satisfactory data, including results from trials, in accordance with the Medicines Act. Every priority will be given to these applications.

  PCB Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effects his Department has observed on the marine algae and molluscs resultant from PCB pollution.

  Mr. Curry
  No effects have been observed in algae or molluscs that could be attributed to the concentrations of PCBs present in sea water around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on PCB poisoning in fish in British coastal waters.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no evidence that present levels of PCBs are causing harm to fish in British coastal waters.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to control the sale and distribution of nitrate fertilisers as a means of curbing the nitrate pollution of public water supplies.

  Mr. Curry
  No. Restrictions on the availability of nitrogen fertilisers would be an ineffective and costly 68
  means of tackling the nitrate problem. My Department does, however, advise farmers on the avoidance of excessive or untimely fertiliser usage, and is currently carrying out local consultations in 21 candidate areas for a pilot nitrate scheme within which a range of voluntary agricultural restrictions, including fertiliser limitations, will be tested.

  Milk
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the production and consumption of milk within the European Economic Community in the current year; and what were the comparable figures in each of the two previous years.

  Mr. Curry
  European Community estimates are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  1987

  1988

  1 1989

  Production

  111·8

  109·7

  108·8

  Consumption

  95·5

  95·9

  98·4

  1 Estimated.

  Consumption figures include all dairy products and are expressed in whole milk equivalent, calculated on a milk fat basis. 1989 figures are provisional and subject to revision.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the regulations and procedures for testing for salmonella in(a) eggs and (b) poultry flocks (i) in Britain and (ii) of eggs imported into Britain and the flocks from whence they came; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The requirements for testing for salmonella in Great Britain are set out in the orders made under the Animal Health Act 1981 which came into effect on 26 October 1989. In relation to imports, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 1 November,Official Report, column 210.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 21 July,Official Report. column 410, he will indicate when he expects the review of staffing levels within the Pesticide Data Evaluation Unit to be finalised;

  (2) whether the review of staffing levels within the Pesticide Data Evaluation Unit has implications for minimising the waiting time for approval of new and reapproval of old pesticides.

  Mr. Maclean
  The scientific complement of the unit has been increased progressively from 42 at October 1988 to 60 today. Special increases in pay have also been awarded to improve recruitment and retention of staff.

  Further consideration is being given to staffing levels to ensure that waiting times are minimised.

  Phosphates
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the results of fieldwork sponsored by his Department on the effect of organophosphates on partridges.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has sponsored projects on the effects of organophosphates on birds but none of these has covered partridges.

  Animal Feed (Contamination)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the abattoirs which have received cattle from farms suspected of having eaten lead contaminated feed since the end of September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No cattle have been permitted to move off farms subject to restrictions except under Ministry consent. No information is available concerning the movement of cattle from farms prior to the imposition of restrictions. The Department of Health has confirmed that on the evidence available no hazard to human health arises from this incident.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what date he was warned by the Dutch Government that lead contaminated feed had been imported into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he first suspected that there was a problem with lead contaminated cattle feed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Dutch Embassy warned the legal department of MAFF on the afternoon of Wednesday 1 November that a specified consignment of contaminated feed had been imported into the United Kingdom. My Department has therefore identified the farms concerned and restricted the movement of meat and milk from them.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that lead contaminated meat and offal from cattle suspected of having eaten lead contaminated feed are not entering the food chain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have used my powers under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to prohibit the movement and slaughter of cattle from affected farms, or the marketing of meat or milk products which might be derived from them.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the creameries which have received milk from cows suspected of having eaten lead contaminated feed since the end of September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Because of the complexity of the milk movement system a considerable number of creameries, not confined to the south-west, may have received such milk. No unacceptable levels of lead have been found in bulk milk supplies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the reasons for the death of cows that ate cattle feed contaminated with lead.
  70
  Mr. Gummer
  In the case of carcases examined by the veterinary investigation service from farms where feed contaminated with lead has been fed, the clinical history, signs, post-mortem and laboratory findings were consistent with a diagnosis of lead poisoning.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results of the testing for the lead content of(a) milk and (b) meat from the farms where cows were fed lead contaminated feed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The results of sample analyses are being published as soon as they become available. Up to 12 November 1989, 1,168 sample results have been published.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to dispose of the dried milk which came from the herds suspected of being fed with lead contaminated feed.

  Mr. Gummer
  All suspect milk has been isolated, processed and withheld from sale. I will decide on the disposal of these milk products in the light of the results of analysis.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of farms in each county which are suspected of having received lead contaminated cattle feed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A consolidated list of all farms which are currently under restriction appears in the schedule to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuffs) (England) (No. 2) Order 1989, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that farmers no longer give lead-contaminated feed to their cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials have taken steps to trace and inform all recipients of potentially contaminated feed and are supervising the withdrawal of supplies from the farms concerned.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to ensure that animal feeding stuffs imported into the United Kingdom are not contaminated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Feedingstuff Regulations 1988 require that animal feeds on sale or being held for sale should not be harmful to the animal or the final consumer. This applies to imported and home-produced feeding-stuffs. The regulations permit certain feed additives and limit the levels of specified contaminants in accordance with EC directives.

  Goats
  Mr. David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government propose to revise the set-aside scheme so as to accommodate fibre-producing animals such as cashmere and angora goats.
  72
  Mr. Curry
  The Government have decided not to take up the option under the Community set-aside scheme to introduce grazed fallow because of problems of control and possible adverse effects upon existing livestock producers, particularly in the hills. The Community rules do not permit restriction of the option to particular types of animals such as fibre-producing goats.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to extend the set-aside scheme to farmers willing to apply organic methods.

  Mr. Maclean
  The scheme already caters for this. Set-aside land may be put to fallow, either for the full set-aside period or in rotation with cropping. There is, thus, the opportunity for farmers intending to adopt organic methods to take land out of intensive agricultural production and to clear it of residues before organic production commences.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence to indicate that BSE can be transmitted vertically.

TRANSPORT

  Lake Lothing (Crossing)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will put out to public consultation the proposed route for the second crossing of Lake Lothing by the A12 at Lowestoft before the end of 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are considering a recent report from our consultations on the options for a second A12 trunk road crossing of Lake Lothing at Lowestoft. We hope to make an announcement about this scheme before the end of 1989.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current estimated costs of extending the Jubilee line to(a) Woolwich and (b) Thamesmead.

  Mr. Portillo
  It has been estimated that it would cost about £285 million in today's prices to add a branch to Woolwich to the proposed extension of the Jubilee line to Canary Wharf and Stratford. Extending such a branch beyond Woolwich to Thamesmead would cost about a further £135 million in today's prices.

  Rail Tunnel, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimated cost of building a rail tunnel at Woolwich linking the north Kent and north Woolwich lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  A rail tunnel to link the north Kent and north Woolwich rail line is one of the options being considered by consultants working on the south circular assessment study. The results of the consultants' work will be published in December.

  Roll-on Roll-off Vessels
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research is being undertaken into measures to prevent the loss of roll-on roll-off vessels at sea.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the Official Report of the formal investigation into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Department of Transport initiated a wide-ranging programme of research into ways of increasing the safety of ro-ro passenger ferries. Phase I of this unusually complex and important programme is nearing completion. I hope that the steering committee which has been supervising progress will have assessed the results and reported to me by early in the new year.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 271, how many (a) passenger and (b) freight roll-on roll-off vessels were lost at sea between 1 January 1981 and 31 December 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figures available for total losses of roll-on roll-off vessels worldwide do not distinguish between passenger and freight vessels, and an answer could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the United Kingdom, only one such vessel was totally lost at sea in the period and she was a passenger vessel.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research is being undertaken into the causes of the loss of 23 roll-on roll-off vessels at sea between 1 January 1981 and 31 December 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The only United Kingdom vessel concerned was the Herald of Free Enterprise. Research which was carried out as part of the investigation into the loss of that ship is reported in appendix IV to the report of the formal investigation (report of court number 8074, published by HMSO) which is available in the Library.

  Investigations into the other losses were the responsibility of the various flag states. In general, the detail of research carried out as part of the investigations is not published, but a resume of the findings of investigations are provided to the International Maritime Organisation. These findings are valuable to the organisation and its member states in the revision and development of safety standards for roll-on roll-off ships.

  Smoke Hoods
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will ask the Civil Aviation Authority to review its conclusions of its paper 87017 "Smoke Hoods: Net Safety Benefit Analysis", published in November 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the regulation of safety in civil aviation. I know of no reason to ask the CAA to review its conclusions of its paper 87107. If the hon. Member has specific points which require clarification they should be taken up with the CAA. I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the chairman of the CAA.

  Welsh Rail Network
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he plans to have with the chairman of British Rail concerning the expansion of the rail network in Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  None, but I understand that British Rail is discussing with local authorities in south Wales the introduction of new passenger services.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimate of the cost of the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responses were received on 2 October from the four consortia invited to tender for the construction of the second Severn crossing. These are now being considered. At this stage details of costs must remain confidential.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current expected date of completion of the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  No date has yet been decided, but if all goes well the crossing could be completed by the end of 1995.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint venture agreement for Channel tunnel rail services between British Rail and Eurorail, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) of 3 November,Official Report, columns 346–47.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. I do not intend to do so.

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a new link route between Tottenham Hale and Hackney Wick; if he will consult the London borough of Waltham Forest about it; if he will make it his policy to hold a public inquiry before any decision on the route is taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) on 23 October at column 373. It is too soon to say what the outcome will be, or if there will be any effect on the London borough of Waltham Forest. Any schemes resulting from decisions taken on the assessment studies will be subject to the appropriate procedures, whether for roads or public transport.

  Bus Routes (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that London Regional Transport is discharging its duties to consult London borough councils over changes to bus routes.
  76
  Mr. Portillo
  Where London Regional Transport proposes to vary an existing bus service it is required by the Transport Act 1985 to consult the local authorities affected as well as the police, the London regional passengers committee and any other person it thinks fit. I have no evidence of LRT failing to comply with this requirement.

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards maintaining the current pattern of travel concessions to pensioners in Greater London, other than any variants of time limits not exceeding half an hour.

  Mr. Portillo
  Travel concessions organised by London Regional Transport are a matter for the London boroughs and the City of London which fund the scheme. If they do not agree on a uniform voluntary scheme by 1 January in any year, the London Regional Transport Act 1984 provides for automatic implementation of a reserve scheme for the ensuing financial year which guarantees free travel for elderly, blind and disabled London residents on all LRT services.

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

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans at present to add to the number of offices the Department already occupies in the north-west of England.

  Air Misses
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air misses have been reported by air traffic controllers in each of the last six months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  By international definition an air miss is a pilot report. With effect from 1 April 1989 the Civil Aviation Authority introduced a similar scheme to permit air traffic control personnel to report aircraft proximity hazards (APHAZ reports). The reports are at present investigated by the CAA's safety regulation group. It is expected that an independent APHAZ assessment panel will be established and functioning before the end of the year.

  The number of reports received since the inception of the scheme are as follows:

  Number

  April

  11

  May

  9

  June

  18

  July

  10

  August

  9

  September

  6

  October

  13

  Total

  76

  To date, investigation and action has been completed on 33 of the reports.
  77
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the official figures for air misses involving civil and military aircraft for each of the last five years; and what proportion these figures represent of the total actual air misses.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total

  (a) All risk bearing airmisses

  78

  66

  71

  78

  92

  385

  (b) Those involving both a commercial air transport and a military aircraft1

  6

  4

  3

  5

  5

  23

  (c) Proportion of (b) to (a) Percentage

  8

  6

  4

  6

  5

  6

  1 Commercial air transport' means aircraft carrying fare paying passengers.

  Institute of Aviation Medicine
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents have been referred, under the CHIRP system, to the Institute of Aviation Medicine at Farnborough for each month since the inception of CHIRP.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested. The scheme for flight crew started in December 1982 and since then 1,139 reports have been received. The scheme was extended to air traffic control personnel in August 1986 and since then 222 reports have been received.

  Transatlantic Flights
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number of licences issued to airlines to operate transatlantic flights which are currently not being used, each airline concerned, the number of licences held, and the airports involved.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I will draw the hon. Member's question to the attention of the authority's chairman.

  Landing Charges
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the landing charges rates for each type of aircraft operating scheduled air services out of each of the BAA-owned airports and for Manchester airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department receives copies of the information on landing charges published annually by BAA plc, and by Manchester Airport plc. The hon. Member may wish to seek details from the airport companies.

  Channel Tunnel (Freight Links)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive British Rail's assessment of the costs and feasibility of providing a dedicated rail system for transporting freight directly from the Channel tunnel to the North of England; and whether any other studies of this matter have been or are being undertaken.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail will be setting out its proposals in the plan which it will shortly be publishing in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
  78
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figures produced by the joint airmiss working group are as follows:

  Tolls
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the roads, bridges or tunnels in England and Wales where tolls have to be paid.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are more than 50 tolled roads, bridges and tunnels in England. The major tolled estuarial crossings, owned by the Department or the relevant local authorities, are:

  Severn Bridge

  Dartford Tunnels

  Humber Bridge

  Mersey Tunnels

  Tyne Tunnel

  lichen Bridge

  Tamar Bridge

  The smaller undertakings are mostly privately owned.

  These include:

  Selby Bridge (North Yorkshire)

  Aldwark Bridge (North Yorkshire)

  Clifton Suspension Bridge (Bristol)

  Dunham Bridge (near Lincoln)

  Kingsland Bridge and toll road (Shrewsbury)

  Shard Bridge (Lancashire)

  Swinford Bridge (Oxfordshire)

  Whitchurch Bridge (near Reading)

  Whitney on Wye Bridge (Hereford and Worcester)

  Roads, bridges and tunnels in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Potholes
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will update the regulations concerning work undertaken by utility companies on roads and footpaths in accordance with the recommendations of the Horne report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Much useful progress has been made in following up the recommendations of the report, including drawing up and consulting on proposals for legislation. A Bill will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found.

  A19 (Safety)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of accidents, serious injuries and deaths on the section of A19 from Peterlee to Sunderland, over the last two years, giving the location of such accidents.

  Mr. Atkins
  The accident information requested, in order of occurrence, is as follows:
  79

  A19 (TR) Durham—From County Boundary Sunderland to Passfield Way Peterlee Injury accidents I January 1987—31 December 1988

  Reference Number

  Date Location of Accident

  Map Reference

  Accidents

  Casualties

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  17

  9 February 1987 A19 Northbound carriage way at Passfield Way junction

  4112 3959

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  18

  15 February 1987 A19 Slip road at South junction to B1404 Seaton, Seaham

  4007 5012

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  33

  15 March 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway exit slip road from Hawthorn services

  4125 4549

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  4

  4

  34

  27 March 1987 A19 Southbound slip road from B1432

  4074 4716

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  19

  23 February 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway North of Murton footbridge

  4064 4775

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  32

  30 March 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway junction with Passfield Way Peterlee

  4112 3959

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  44

  5 April 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway junction with Passfield Way Peterlee

  4112 3959

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  45

  6 April 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway near Easington Village

  4073 4342

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  46

  6 April 1987 A19 Northbound carriageway approx.¼ mile South of Easington

  4120 4532

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  47

  6 April 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway adjacent to Hawthorn Services

  4125 4549

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  48

  6 April 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway adjacent to Hawthorn Services

  4125 4549

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  50

  6 April 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway adjacent to Hawthorn Services

  4125 4549

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  70

  12 May 1987 A19 Northbound carriageway ½ mile South of Hawthorn Services

  4106 4496

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  83

  1 June 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway adjacent to Hawthorn Services

  4125 4549

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  82

  20 June 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway at Passfield Way junction

  4112 3959

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  84

  24 June 1987 A19 1 mile North of Murton

  4060 4794

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  107

  7 August 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway approach to Lowhills roundabout

  4140 4120

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  109

  19 August 1987 A19/B1404 Northbound near to Northbound entry slip road

  4004 5015

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  3

  3

  108

  26 August 1987 A19 Northbound carriageway Near Mill Hill Peterlee

  4132 4258

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  127

  1 September 1987 A19 ½ mile South of Hawthorn Services Northbound carriageway

  4106 4496

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  128

  15 September 1987 A19 Northbound exit slip road Murton Flyover

  4080 4699

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  152

  12 November 1987 A19 Northbound carriageway ⅔ mile South of Hawthorn Services

  4115 4519

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  155

  26 November 1987 A19 Burnhope Way entrance to Lowhills roundabout Peterlee

  4140 4120

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  (TW 77

  ) 27 November 1987 A19 Southbound carriageway ½ mile North of junction to Seaham Vc

  3940 5070

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1 January 1988 A19 Lowhills roundabout Peterlee

  4140 4120

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  4 January 1988 A19 Northbound carriageway Loaning Burn Easington

  4069 4356

  x

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  6

  4

  5 January 1988 A19 Southbound carriageway South of Easington

  4132 4278

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  8

  5 January 1988 A19 Northbound carriageway approximately 200 yds South of B1285

  4079 4705

  x

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  9

  11 January 1988 A19 Northbound carriageway 300 yds South of Westlane Bridge

  4115 4155

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  12 January 1988 A19 Northbound carriageway North of Easington entry slip road

  4068 4362

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  3

  3

  10

  18 January 1988 A19 Northbound slip road at junction B1404 Seaham

  4005 5010

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  24

  8 February 1988 A19 Southbound carriageway 1 mile South of Hawthorne Services

  4094 4452

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  27

  24 February 1988 A19 junction slip to A1018 Seaham

  4019 4953

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  62

  30 May 1988 A19 entrance to Hawthorne Services Northbound carriageway

  4125 4549

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  100

  17 June 1988 A19 Southbound carriageway ½ mile South of Hawthorn Services

  4105 4498

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  98

  17 August 1988 A19 Southbound carriageway junction with Passfield Way

  4114 3959

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  131

  2 November 1988 A19 Lowhills Roundabout Peterlee

  4140 4120

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  130

  18 November 1988 A19 Northbound carriageway 100 yds South of Hawthorne Services

  4121 4540

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  115

  10 December 1988 A19 ½ mile North of B1404 between Seaton and Burdon

  3950 5070

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  1

  1

  80

  81

  Reference Number

  Date

  Location of Accident

  Map Reference

  Accidents

  Casualties

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  145

  18 December 1988

  A19 junction with Passfield Way Peterlee

  4112

  3960

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  146

  21 December 1988

  A19 Northbound carriageway junction with Passfield Way

  4114

  3959

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  4

  35

  3

  8

  53

  64

  Total 41

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Medical Schools
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many medical schools in England and Wales have a department of rehabilitation medicine in their medical faculty; and how many medically qualified staff are employed in each.

  Mr. Jackson
  Four, of which one has seven medically qualified members of staff and the remainder three each.

  Further Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities had submitted schemes of delegation for further education to his Department for approval by the required date of 30 September 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  Of the 95 local education authorities required to submit schemes of planning and delegation for further education to my Department by 30 September 1989, all but one have now done so.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) in the submitted articles of government for further education colleges, how many local education authority schemes of delegation propose the inclusion of representation by special needs staff on the academic board;

  (2) in the submitted schemes of delegation for further education (a) where reference is made to procedures of planning, how many of them make reference to the procedures they intend to use for planning for the needs of young people with special education needs, (b) how many schemes of delegation establish special educational needs as a specific programme area for resourcing purposes in respect of course provision for groups of students with special educational needs, (c) where a specific programme area is established for SEN, what weighting is given to it, (d) how many LEAs have followed the recommendation under item 23 of circular 9/88 to establish a development fund for the development of provision for students with SEN and (e) how many LEAs have included among their expected items of expenditure a central fund for meeting the costs of individual students with SEN, as recommended under item 27 of circular 9/88;

  (3) what criteria his Department is employing in determining whether to approve the schemes of delegation submitted by local education authorities, with regard to the provision of services to students with special educational needs.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is currently considering schemes of planning and delegation for further education 82
  submitted for approval by LEAs other than inner London. In considering schemes for approval, my right hon. Friend will want to assure himself that all LEAs intend to take account, in planning their further and higher education provision, of the need to secure an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for those who have special educational needs. The information requested on the schemes submitted could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  St. John's Angell School, Brixton
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communications he has received from St. John's Angell Church of England primary school in Brixton about staffing; and what reply he has sent.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A letter on this subject from the acting head teacher of St. John's Angell Town primary school was received on 2 November. It will be replied to as soon as possible.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the total number of students eligible to leave school at age 16 years in the summers of 1988 and 1989(a) joined a 6th form course, (b) became employed full time, (c) joined YTS as an employee, (d) joined YTS as a trainee, (e) became employed part-time, and (f) entered further education.

  Mr. Jackson
  In January 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, provisional estimates of students aged 16 at 31 August 1988 in England, were as follows:

  Percentage of the age group in full-time education

  Number

  School1

  33

  Further/higher education2

  17

  All

  50

  YTS3

  23

  In employment4

  27

  1 Pupils attending maintained, independent and special schools are included.

  2 Full-time and sandwich including higher education but excluding private further education. Excludes those on YTS within college.

  3 Includes those in further educational establishments attending YTS courses.

  4 Including those who were neither employed nor seeking work (eg. because of domestic responsibilities).

  Education Spending (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources have been provided in Northumberland in connection with the implementation of the national curriculum.
  83
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Targeted support for expenditure by local education authorities on the introduction of the national curriculum is channelled through education support grants and LEA training grants. This financial year the Government are supporting £801,100 of expenditure in Northumberland through these grants to help the authority's schools to implement the national curriculum. That is an addition to the general rate support grant (RSG) funding which local authorities receive in support of spending. It is for Northumberland itself to determine how much in total to allocate to the implementation of the education reforms, including the national curriculum.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of letters received by his Department expressing(a) support and (b) opposition to the introduction of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students we have received about 4,100 letters. Many supported the principle that students should contribute to their own living costs.

  College Accommodation
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what action he is taking to assist Bradford and Ilkley community college secure additional accommodation following the withdrawal of the college from the Alexandra hotel; and if he will make extra funds immediately available to the college to secure additional accommodation for lectures and students;

  (2) what regulations exist governing the minimum standards of teaching accommodation at colleges; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what reports he has received from problems caused by a shortage of teaching accommodation at the Bradford campus of Bradford and Ilkley community college; if he will arrange for an official inspection immediately of the teaching facilities at the Bradford campus; if he will make a statement;

  (4) what representations he has received from students from the Bradford campus of Bradford and Ilkley community college about the lack of lecture rooms and seating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not received any reports or representations this year about the teaching accommodation at the Bradford campus of the Bradford and Ilkley community college. However, the Department has received a bid from the Bradford education authority for a major building project, to start in 1990, to replace the Alexandra hotel building. The bid will be considered on its merits along with those from other education authorities, and allocations will be announced in December.

  There are no regulations regarding minimum standards of teaching accommodation for further and higher education (FHE) colleges. However, the Department publishes advice about the capacity of FHE institutions; such advice can be found in design notes 33, 37, 44 and 45. I am sending the hon. Member copies of all these publications.
  84
  Her Majesty's inspectorate make regular visits to FHE colleges which include assessments of the adequacy and sufficiency of teaching and other accommodation.

  Nursing Courses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if students undertaking nursing undergraduate courses in full-time higher education are to have their grants frozen and replaced with loans under the proposed student loans scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Students on nursing degree courses, like other students in full-time higher education, will have access to the additional resource provided by the top-up loan.

  Graduates
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the average income level received 12 months after graduation by(a) disabled graduates, (b) able-bodied graduates and (c) all graduates;

  (2) what is the average length of time taken to enter full-time employment following graduation for (a) disabled graduates, (b) able-bodied graduates and (c) all graduates.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Class Sizes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures for the average class sizes in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) nursery schools for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on average class sizes for nursery schools is not available centrally. The average class size for maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1989 is given in the table. Class sizes relate to those taught by one teacher during a selected period on the day of the census count in January. They do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.

  Average class sizes in maintained Primary and Secondary schools January 1989

  Average class size

  Primary

  Secondary

  Barking

  24·3

  18·7

  Barnet

  24·2

  18·6

  Bexley

  25·4

  20·3

  Brent

  25·1

  19·0

  Bromley

  25·9

  19·6

  Croydon

  25·5

  20·3

  Ealing

  23·9

  18·1

  Enfield

  26·3

  19·5

  Haringey

  24·3

  18·4

  Harrow

  26·8

  21·5

  Havering

  26·1

  19·4

  Hillingdon

  25·3

  19·7

  Hounslow

  24·8

  19·2

  Kingston upon Thames

  26·7

  18·1

  Merton

  26·2

  20·1

  Newham

  25·5

  20·5

  Redbridge

  28·6

  19·9

  Richmond upon Thames

  25·1

  20·6

  Sutton

  26·3

  20·0

  Waltham Forest

  26·4

  17·9

  85

  Average class size

  Primary

  Secondary

  Inner London

  23·5

  20·2

  Birmingham

  27·4

  21·4

  Coventry

  26·1

  20·7

  Dudley

  25·9

  19·1

  Sandwell

  26·1

  18·6

  Solihull

  26·3

  20·3

  Walsall

  24·2

  18·3

  Wolverhampton

  22·9

  19·0

  Knowsley

  25·3

  19·1

  Liverpool

  24·4

  19·0

  St. Helens

  26·2

  18·4

  Sefton

  26·3

  20·5

  Wirral

  24·5

  19·9

  Bolton

  26·6

  19·4

  Bury

  25·8

  19·8

  Manchester

  25·5

  18·8

  Oldham

  26·9

  19·6

  Rochdale

  26·8

  18·5

  Salford

  25·2

  18·4

  Stockport

  26·3

  19·4

  Tameside

  26·7

  20·3

  TrafFord

  26·4

  19·0

  Wigan

  26·3

  18·7

  Barnsley

  25·5

  19·9

  Doncaster

  24·9

  20·1

  Rotherham

  24·5

  19·0

  Sheffield

  24·6

  19·3

  Bradford

  25·0

  20·7

  Calderdale

  26·7

  19·6

  Kirklees

  25·7

  19·4

  Leeds

  25·5

  19·3

  Wakefield

  26·2

  19·5

  Gateshead

  23·7

  18·7

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  25·7

  19·1

  North Tyneside

  23·2

  18·5

  South Tyneside

  23·6

  17·9

  Sunderland

  24·8

  19·6

  Isles of Scilly

  14·0

  12·2

  Avon

  27·2

  20·6

  Bedfordshire

  25·8

  20·9

  Berkshire

  26·5

  19·3

  Buckinghamshire

  27·7

  20·4

  Cambridgeshire

  26·7

  20·4

  Cheshire

  27·7

  19·9

  Cleveland

  25·5

  18·9

  Cornwall

  26·1

  20·2

  Cumbria

  24·4

  19·0

  Derbyshire

  25·4

  19·5

  Devon

  26·0

  21·3

  Dorset

  26·8

  20·8

  Durham

  26·0

  20·1

  East Sussex

  25·9

  20·2

  Essex

  26·0

  20·8

  Gloucestershire

  25·7

  19·7

  Hampshire

  26·0

  20·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  25·7

  20·1

  Hertfordshire

  25·0

  19·0

  Humberside

  25·5

  20·0

  Lancashire

  27·2

  20·0

  Leicestershire

  25·5

  19·8

  Lincolnshire

  25·9

  20·2

  Norfolk

  24·9

  19·6

  North Yorkshire

  24·6

  19·7

  Northamptonshire

  26·2

  20·1

  Northumberland

  25·3

  20·3

  Nottinghamshire

  25·3

  19·1

  Oxfordshire

  26·0

  20·7

  86

  Average class size

  Primary

  Secondary

  Shropshire

  24·6

  19·3

  Somerset

  26·3

  21·0

  Staffordshire

  25·5

  20·4

  Suffolk

  24·8

  21·0

  Surrey

  24·5

  19·0

  Warwickshire

  25·5

  19·5

  West Sussex

  25·9

  20·6

  Wiltshire

  25·5

  20·2

  England

  25·7

  19·9

  Under-fives
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what are the latest figures for the percentage of under-fives in nursery schools, by local education authority in England in rank order;

  (2) what are the latest figures for the percentage of under-fives in nursery classes, by local education authority in England, in rank order:

  (3) what are the latest figures for the percentage of under-fives in infant classes, by local education authority in England, in rank order.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The percentage of children under five attending maintained nursery schools, nursery classes and infant classes in primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1989 in rank order is given in the following tables.

  Percentage of children under five attending nursery schools in each local education authority in January 1989 in rank order

  Percentage of population

  South Tyneside

  18·7

  Durham

  17·0

  Rochdale

  14·9

  Salford

  14·4

  Newham

  13·2

  Wolverhampton

  12·4

  Sunderland

  11·8

  Walsall

  11·3

  Stockport

  10·9

  Berkshire

  9·6

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  9·6

  Lancashire

  9·2

  Bedfordshire

  8·6

  Birmingham

  7·9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  7·7

  Staffordshire

  7·3

  Inner London

  7·0

  Cumbria

  6·9

  Barnet

  6·9

  Ealing

  6·8

  Hertfordshire

  6·6

  Warwickshire

  6·5

  Bolton

  6·5

  Avon

  6·4

  North Tyneside

  6·1

  Sheffield

  6·1

  Wakefield

  5·9

  Kirklees

  5·9

  Sutton

  5·9

  Tameside

  5·7

  Derbyshire

  5·6

  Coventry

  5·3

  Rotherham

  5·2

  Waltham Forest

  5·2

  Oxfordshire

  5·2

  Croydon

  4·9

  Sefton

  4·5

  Liverpool

  4·5

  87

  Percentage of population

  Humberside

  4·5

  Manchester

  4·2

  Northamptonshire

  4·1

  Dudley

  4·1

  Cambridgeshire

  4·1

  Brent

  3·7

  Bury

  3·7

  Bradford

  3·6

  Cheshire

  3·5

  Haringey

  3·3

  Wirral

  3·3

  Bexley

  3·2

  Barnsley

  3·2

  West Sussex

  3·0

  Buckinghamshire

  3·0

  Sandwell

  2·6

  Norfolk

  2·4

  Nottinghamshire

  2·4

  Lincolnshire

  2·3

  North Yorkshire

  2·2

  Wigan

  2·1

  East Sussex

  2·1

  Northumberland

  2·0

  Hillingdon

  2·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·9

  Surrey

  1·8

  Shropshire

  1·7

  St. Helens

  1·6

  Gateshead

  1·3

  Leeds

  1·3

  Devon

  1·1

  Cleveland

  1·0

  Cornwall1

  1·0

  Hampshire

  0·7

  Essex

  0·7

  Suffolk

  0·6

  Kent

  0·2

  Leicestershire

  0·2

  Calderdale2

  0·0

  Solihull2

  0·0

  Redbridge2

  0·0

  Hereford and Worcester2

  0·0

  Somerset2

  0·0

  Dorset2

  0·0

  Merton2

  0·0

  Doncaster2

  0·0

  Hounslow2

  0·0

  Oldham2

  0·0

  Havering2

  0·0

  Isle of Wight2

  0·0

  Harrow2

  0·0

  Barking2

  0·0

  Enfield2

  0·0

  Knowsley2

  0·0

  Trafford2

  0·0

  Gloucestershire2

  0·0

  Wiltshire2

  0·0

  Bromley2

  0·0

  ENGLAND

  4·2

  1 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  2 Have no Nursery Schools.

  Percentage of children under five attending nursery classes in each local education authority in January 1989 in rank order

  Percentage of population

  Hounslow

  66·4

  Cleveland

  54·3

  Manchester

  51·7

  Walsall

  48·9

  North Tyneside

  48·4

  Barnsley

  46·6

  Nottinghamshire

  46·3

  Wolverhampton

  46·1

  88

  Percentage of population

  Hillingdon

  45·9

  Liverpool

  45·5

  Newham

  43·6

  Sandwell

  43·4

  Wakefield

  42·6

  Knowsley

  41·7

  Doncaster

  40·6

  Merton

  40·1

  Salford

  38·8

  Leeds

  36·5

  Sheffield

  36·3

  Tameside

  35·8

  Rotherham

  35·4

  Oldham

  34·5

  Gateshead

  34·1

  Haringey

  33·7

  Bradford

  33·4

  Barking

  33·3

  Kirklees

  33·0

  Waltham Forest

  32·4

  South Tyneside

  32·3

  Solihull

  31·9

  St. Helens

  31·7

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  31·1

  Bolton

  30·7

  Inner London

  30·2

  Humberside

  29·8

  Ealing

  29·6

  Dudley

  29·6

  Brent

  28·7

  Calderdale

  28·5

  Derbyshire

  28·5

  Sefton

  26·7

  Northumberland

  26·0

  Birmingham

  24·5

  Sunderland

  24·2

  Barnet

  24·2

  Bury

  24·0

  Wigan

  23·9

  Hertfordshire

  23·7

  Bedfordshire

  22·8

  Durham

  22·7

  Leicestershire

  21·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  20·9

  Enfield

  20·6

  Trafford

  19·6

  Richmond upon Thames

  19·0

  Sutton

  18·6

  Coventry

  18·4

  Wirral

  18·1

  Cheshire

  17·9

  North Yorkshire

  17·2

  Harrow

  16·3

  Northamptonshire

  16·0

  Staffordshire

  15·3

  Suffolk

  15·0

  Rochdale

  15·0

  Cumbria

  14·9

  Berkshire

  14·6

  Cornwall1

  13·7

  Bexley

  12·1

  Redbridge

  11·7

  Warwickshire

  11·2

  Shropshire

  10·8

  Surrey

  9·7

  Devon

  9·6

  Avon

  9·4

  Oxfordshire

  9·3

  Cambridgeshire

  8·3

  Lancashire

  8·0

  Buckinghamshire

  7·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  6·4

  Isle of Wight

  5·9

  Dorset

  5·9

  Lincolnshire

  5·8

  Stockport

  5·5

  Essex

  5·5

  89

  Percentage of population

  East Sussex

  5·4

  Kent

  4·8

  Havering

  4·3

  Hampshire

  4·3

  Norfolk

  2·6

  Wiltshire

  2·2

  Croydon

  2·2

  Bromley

  2·0

  Somerset

  0·9

  West Sussex

  0·6

  Gloucestershire2

  —

  England

  20·5

  1 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  2 Has no designated nursery classes.

  Percentage of children under five in attending infant classes in each local education authority in January 1989 in rank order

  Percentage of population

  Isle of Wight

  36·6

  Gateshead

  34·2

  Northamptonshire

  34·1

  Liverpool

  33·9

  Calderdale

  33·7

  Havering

  33·2

  Cumbria

  33·2

  Somerset

  33·1

  Solihull

  33·1

  North Tyneside

  32·8

  Tameside

  32·6

  Sefton

  32·6

  Barking

  32·5

  Walsall

  32·4

  Doncaster

  32·4

  Wigan

  32·3

  Cheshire

  32·3

  South Tyneside

  32·1

  Bury

  32·1

  Oldham

  32·0

  Warwickshire

  32·0

  Lancashire

  31·8

  Salford

  31·8

  Birmingham

  31·7

  Gloucestershire

  31·6

  St. Helens

  31·6

  Stockport

  31·5

  Sandwell

  31·5

  Coventry

  31·4

  Avon

  31·2

  Cambridgeshire

  31·1

  Sunderland

  31·0

  Dorset

  31·0

  Cornwall2

  30·8

  Northumberland

  30·6

  Durham

  30·4

  Bolton

  30·3

  Newcastle- upon-Tyne

  30·1

  Wirral

  30·0

  East Sussex

  29·9

  Rochdale

  29·6

  Harrow

  29·5

  Enfield

  29·2

  Knowsley

  29·0

  Croydon

  27·7

  Kingston upon Thames

  26·9

  Brent

  26·7

  Ealing

  26·4

  North Yorkshire

  26·2

  Haringey

  26·2

  Norfolk

  25·7

  Barnet

  25·5

  Derbyshire

  23·2

  Lincolnshire

  22·7

  Staffordshire

  22·0

  90

  Percentage of population

  Leeds

  22·0

  Wakefield

  21·3

  Shropshire

  21·1

  Humberside

  20·6

  Merton

  20·4

  Bradford

  19·8

  Kirk lees

  19·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  19·6

  Cleveland

  19·1

  Sheffield

  18·9

  Barnsley

  17·6

  Hertfordshire

  17·2

  Wiltshire

  16·2

  Manchester

  15·8

  Wolverhampton

  15·8

  Devon

  15·7

  Essex

  15·6

  Leicestershire

  15·3

  Suffolk

  15·2

  Hampshire

  15·0

  Redbridge

  14·9

  Rotherham

  14·9

  Bromley

  14·3

  Dudley

  14·0

  Inner London

  12·8

  Surrey

  12·1

  Bexley

  11·5

  Waltham Forest

  11·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  9·7

  Trafford

  8·1

  Kent

  8·0

  Buckinghamshire

  7·9

  Nottinghamshire

  6·7

  West Sussex

  5·4

  Bedfordshire

  5·0

  Oxfordshire

  3·8

  Hillingdon

  3·6

  Berkshire

  1·2

  Hounslow

  1·0

  Sutton

  0·6

  Newham

  0·0

  England

  21·1

  1 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any evidence from other countries where a loans system has been introduced of its effects on disabled students entering further and higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have no evidence to suggest that the introduction of loans schemes in other countries has reduced participation by disabled students. Top-up loans represent an additional resource which we intend to make available to disabled as to other students.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether as part of his proposals on top-up loans for students he will consider establishing a fourth access fund to assist disabled students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Disabled students, in addition to their present support, will be eligible for the additional resources in the form of the loan that the Government intend to provide. Unlike other students, they will retain entitlement to social security benefits. They will be eligible for support from the access fund appropriate to their level of study. In the circumstances there is no need to provide an additional access fund exclusively for disabled students.
  91
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have policies governing payment of the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 6 November 1989 at column 423.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any national guidelines issued to local education authorities governing payment of the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department issues notes of guidance to local education authorities on the interpretation and application of most aspects of the mandatory awards regulations, including those relating to disabled students. Copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received in 1989 relating to the level of the disabled students grant.

  Mr. Jackson
  Some formal responses to the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" expressed concern about the effect of those proposals on the supplementary allowances which are available with the grant for disabled students. The RNID, responding on behalf of a number of organisations representing the disabled, argued for additional funding, over and above the allowance for disabled students.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research his Department has carried out or supported to ascertain the extra costs arising from disability faced by disabled students who attend higher education courses.

  Mr. Jackson
  The student grant rates are reviewed each year in the light of available information about students' circumstances. This comes from a variety of sources, including the series of surveys commissioned by the Department of the income and expenditure of a representative sample of students.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate for the total cost of publicising the new electricity companies and privatising the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No expenditure on publicising the new electricity companies has so far been incurred by Government. Expenditure by the industry is a matter for the industry itself. The total costs which will be incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will depend upon many factors that have not yet been decided.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of slippage in the timetable for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There has been no slippage in the overall timetable for the privatisation. We still intend to complete it within this Parliament.
  92
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the setting up of independent generation companies after the restructuring of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) earlier today.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the privatisation of the electricity industry is now expected to take place.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The electricity industry will be privatised within this Parliament; the area boards will be offered for sale in autumn 1990 and the two generating companies will be offered for sale in the first half of 1991. Exact dates will be set nearer the time.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to remove the advanced gas-cooled reactors from the electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement on 9 November at column 1175.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the recently agreed package of measures between the Department and the electricity industry are intended to lead to increased competition after the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The contractual package announced at the end of September is designed to provide a stable transition to full competition in electricity generation and supply.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most recent estimated date for vesting day for each part of the electricity supply industry, and for the flotation of each, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government intend to implement the new structure of the industry at the end of March 1990; the area boards will be offered for sale in autumn 1990 and the two generating companies will be offered for sale in the first half of 1991. Exact dates will be set nearer the time.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total amount spent by his Department to date on outside advice on the privatisation of electricty; and which companies have received £1 million or more.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total cost to my Department of all advisers working on electricity privatisation amounted to £0·8 million in 1987–88 and £5·5 million in 1988–89. In addition, there is provision of £26·5 million relevant expenses in 1989–90. Detailed information about contracts with advisers is commercially confidential.

  Fossil Fuels
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total consumption in metric tonnes of oil, gas and coal, respectively, in 1973 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total inland consumption has been as follows:
  93

  million tonnes

  Calendar year

  Oil

  Gas (coal equivalent)

  Coal

  1973

  108·2

  44·2

  133·3

  1974

  101·6

  52·9

  117·9

  1975

  89·9

  55·4

  122·2

  1976

  89·0

  58·8

  123·6

  1977

  90·0

  62·8

  124·0

  1978

  91·4

  65·1

  120·5

  1979

  91·3

  71·1

  129·4

  1980

  78·3

  71·1

  123·5

  1981

  72·7

  72·1

  118·4

  1982

  72·9

  71·7

  111·0

  1983

  70·4

  74·8

  111·5

  1984

  87·7

  76·5

  77·3

  1985

  76·2

  82·3

  105·4

  1986

  75·6

  83·6

  114·2

  1987

  73·7

  85·9

  115·9

  1988

  78·3

  81·5

  111·5

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Tables 2 (natural gas), 3 (oil) and 14 (coal)

  British Coal
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the topics which he intends to raise when he next meets the chairman of British Coal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) earlier today.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much has been invested in British Coal since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Over £6·5 billion of capital expenditure has been invested in British Coal since 1979. Investment is continuing at over £2 million every working day.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects to announce proposals for the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government have announced their intention to privatise the coal industry in the next Parliament. The timing of privatisation will depend on, among other things, the industry's progress towards achieving a viable size and level of costs.

  UK Continental Shelf
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of exploration and appraisal drilling in the United Kingdom continental shelf during 1989 and in earlier years.
  94
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The level of exploration and appraisal drilling so far this year compares favourably with that achieved in the two best previous years on record, 1984 and 1988. The numbers of wells started up to the end of October in each of these three years was as follows:

  Exploration

  Appraisal

  Total

  1984

  91

  69

  160

  1988

  77

  74

  151

  1989

  76

  65

  141

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the trend in the level of exploration and appraisal drilling in the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Up to the end of October, 76 exploration wells and 65 appraisal wells had been started on the United Kingdom continental shelf since the beginning of the year.

  Gas Industry (Competition)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any representations about competition in the gas industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received a number of representations about competition in the gas industry.

  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has met the Director General of Gas Supply to discuss the progress being made towards the competitive sale of gas to industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I met the Director General of Gas Supply last month and we discussed a range of issues of mutual interest, including competition in the supply of gas to industry.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies he has undertaken into the cost of decommissioning Britain's nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Earlier this year my Department asked the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to review the CEGB's estimates of decommissioning costs. In drawing up its accounts for 1988–89 the Central Electricity Generating Board will take account of both this work and its own further studies.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to how many nuclear power stations have been(a) ordered, and (b) completed within Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries within the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In OECD countries during 1984–88, work was started on 19 new nuclear power reactors, and 92 reactors were connected to the grid.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of greenhouse gases that would be produced if all the United Kingdom's nuclear reactors were decommissioned and the replacement demand met entirely by the burning of fossil fuels.
  95
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the amount of greenhouse gases that would be produced if all the United Kingdom's nuclear reactors were decommissioned and demand met entirely by the burning of fossil fuels.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Replacing nuclear power by electricity produced from fossil fuels would increase the output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas produced by the electricity sector, by about 53 million tonnes per annum or 25 per cent. over current levels.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the population and how many in actual numbers, live within 15 miles of a nuclear power station in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The percentage and number of the population who live within 25 km (approximately 15·5 miles) of a nuclear power station, based on the 1981 census of population figures, are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Number

  England

  7

  3,292,000

  Scotland

  7

  356,000

  Wales

  3

  85,000

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I visited Sellafield on 11 October and took the opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues with the chairman.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made on promoting the efficient use of energy in the public sector.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made on promoting the efficient use of energy in the public sector.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  On 19 October I chaired the first of a series of regular meetings of Ministers responsible for departmental energy use, when excellent progress was made.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has proposals to encourage the use of more energy-efficient domestic appliances.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Manufacturers and consumer associations already publish energy consumption data for electrical appliances which facilitate the choice of the more energy efficient models. My energy efficiency office has commissioned a study on the energy efficiency of electrical appliances and we will consider the matter further when we have received the report of this study.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements have been made in energy efficiency in the last 10 years.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies he has undertaken into the rate of improvement in energy efficiency in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  96
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1989" contains figures for primary energy consumption, gross domestic product, and the resultant energy ratio.

  Over the last 10 years, the energy ratio has improved from 1·24 tonnes of coal equivalent per £1,000 gross domestic product in 1979 to 1·01 tonnes per £1,000 in 1988, an average reduction in energy intensity in excess of 2 per cent. per year.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives his Department is taking in the field of energy efficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 17 July 1989 at column 53.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evidence is available on the extent to which the seven highest energy-using industries have become more energy efficient during the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The latest information comes from the five-yearly purchase inquiries conducted with a sample of 10,000 United Kingdom manufacturing sites and establishments by the Business Statistics Office. A further survey is now under way.

  The table shows the difference in energy consumption as a percentage of gross output for the seven most energy-intensive industries in the United Kingdom for the years 1979 and 1984. The figures are published in "Industrial Energy Markets: No. 9 Energy Efficiency Series".

  Gross output

  Percentage of output spent on Energy Consumption

  1984 £ million

  1979

  1984

  Basic Chemicals

  7,224

  7·84

  6·75

  Iron and Steel

  7,208

  8·74

  7·47

  Non Ferrous Metals

  3,965

  4·90

  15·30

  Cement

  3,335

  9·66

  9·13

  Paper and Board

  1,942

  11·88

  9·59

  Bricks and Ceramics

  1,738

  10·35

  10·70

  Glass

  1,328

  10·29

  211·32

  1 There has been a change to electric melting for quality control, environmental and other reasons leading to lower energy consumption but higher cost.

  2 During this five-year period manpower costs more than halved due to intense rationalisation of plants, and other costs were also reduced —thus masking a real decrease in energy consumption.

  It can be seen that in several industries there have been considerable improvements in energy efficiency. A number of individual examples of considerable increases in energy efficiency in the tabulated industries are being documented under the Energy Efficiency Office "Best Practice" programme and will be available during the coming year.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many households who are on low incomes have been insulated to conserve heat under the energy efficiency scheme since March; how many are budgeted for in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.
  97
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Some 37,000 low-income households benefited from the insulation services of community insulation projects in the first quarter of this financial year. For the year as a whole I expect to see not less than 140,000 homes to benefit.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the contribution of the burning of fossil fuels to global warming.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the contribution of the burning of fossil fuels to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received a number of representations on this matter. The Select Committee on Energy has published a report on the energy policy implications of the greenhouse effect, to which the Government responded on 8 November.

  PWR Programme
  Dr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Government's adviser on electricity privatisation regarding the cost and viability of the PWR programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet my advisers on electricity privatisation frequently and discuss a wide range of issues; I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 9 November.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 'what is his estimate of the cost of electricity which will be generated by the means of the pressurised water reactor as presently planned.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman-designate of PowerGen; and what was discussed.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regularly meet the chairmen-designate of PowerGen and National Power to discuss matters of common interest.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of National Power; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of National Power; and what matters will be discussed.
  98
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman-designate of National Power to discuss matters of common interest.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the potential generation of electricity from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The most recent estimates of the potential contribution from renewable energy sources were published in Energy Paper 55 "Renewable Energy in the UK—The Way Forward", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government intend to set orders for up to 600 MW of renewable energy capacity during the 1990s, in addition to whatever is contracted in the initial obligation. The proposed levels of these special tranches will be kept under review to ensure that when the obligations are made they take into account the potential availability of renewable capacity.

  United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association.
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association on 8 November, and a number of North sea-related issues were raised.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about proposals for a tidal-power barrage across the Severn estuary.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about proposals for a tidal-power barrage across the Severn estuary.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Sir Frank Gibb, chairman of the Severn Tidal Power Group on 18 October to discuss the general report of the Severn barrage project.

  Over the next two years further work on the Severn barrage will be undertaken. This will include some site specific environmental work and a study of the organisation and financing issues for a barrage.

  The work to be undertaken immediately is under discussion with the Severn Tidal Power Group in the light of its report.

  Coal Industry (Employment)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the effect of the electricity supply industry on future employment in the British coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The coal industry will need to ensure that its future output and prices meet the needs of its main
  99
  customers including the privatised electricity generators. Employment in the industry will depend both on demand for coal and future productivity gains. It is for British Coal to determine what its manpower requirements are and how it will meet them.

  North Sea Development
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present rate of North sea development.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Exploration and appraisal drilling remain close to record levels and expenditure on new developments continues to recover following the collapse in oil prices in 1986. These results demonstrate the success of the policies we have pursued to ensure that investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf is encouraged and will be maintained in the future.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates for expansion of exploration and development of oil and gas in the Scottish sector of the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am confident that under this Government's policies the United Kingdom sector of the North sea will remain a substantial producer of oil and gas well into the next century. Exploration and appraisal activity remains close to record levels and expenditure on new developments continues to recover following the collapse of oil prices in 1986.

  Electricity Imports
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has of the proportion of electricity imported from France via the Channel cable which is nuclear generated; at what cost; and what estimate he has of the coal equivalent in 1989 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Electricity imported from France via the cross-Channel link is at present dispatched from the French system as a whole and no differentiation is at present made of the source.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the import of electricity from natural sources in Iceland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that there are no plans at present to import electricity from Iceland. Any decision to proceed with a link will be a commercial matter for the industry.

  British Gas
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas; and what issues he discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Gas in September when they discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.

  North Sea (Safety)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has to improve safety in the North sea oil industry.
  100
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to enforce higher safety standards in the North sea oil industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We are constantly seeking to improve offshore safety standards. Regulations requiring emergency shut-down valves on offshore installations were introduced in June 1989, as were regulations requiring the election of offshore safety representatives and safety committees. Regulations relating to revised arrangements for first aid offshore were made in September. Further regulations relating to sub-sea isolation systems are being prepared. Discussion documents have been issued detailing proposals for a review of the requirements for life-saving appliances, work permit procedures and fire and explosion protection on offshore installations, together with proposals requiring formal safety assessments to be applied as a continuous process at all stages of an installation's life cycle. In addition, a number of safety notices have been issued drawing the attention of the industry to specific areas of concern. The Government have made it clear that if the Piper Alpha public inquiry can recommend further improvements to the safety regime these will be implemented.

  Petroleum Science and Technology Institute
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the establishment of the Petroleum Science and Technology Institute.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the establishment of the Petroleum Science and Technology Institute.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Petroleum Science and Technology Institute is now established with a chairman and board of management in office, a director appointed and the first research contracts concluded. The institute has been pledged some £7 million in funding from the oil industry and my Department over the next five years.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for increasing the projected budget for the Energy Efficiency Office for the next financial year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The budget for the Energy Efficiency Office in 1990–91 is being reviewed in the public expenditure survey. A statement on the outcome of the survey will be made shortly.

  EC Energy Commissioner
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Commissioner for Energy of the European Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I last met Senor Cardoso in September in Montreal at the world energy conference. We discussed a range of topics including the Community's efforts to achieve a single market in energy, the implications of widely different circumstances in the energy sectors of Community member states and the relationship between energy and environmental policies.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of how many jobs in the United Kingdom depend on the nuclear power industry.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of how many jobs in the United Kingdom depend on nuclear power.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 26 June 1989 at columns 688–89.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evaluation he has made of the long-term future of the new nuclear company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The nuclear company has an assured and long future as the operator of the CEGB's present Magnox and AGR stations. As I said in my statement to the House on 9 November, it should be possible, subject to the views of the nuclear installations inspectorate, for the lifetimes of at least some of the Magnox stations to be extended. The AGRs have many years ahead of them. The company will also have responsibility for building and operating Sizewell B, which will still be generating power 40 years from now. The successful completion and operation of that station will also enable the company to maintain the option to build further PWRs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the latest figures for the cost of nuclear power and nuclear decommissioning quoted by the Central Electricity Generating Board at the Sizewell B and Hinkley Point C inquiries respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Figures given to the Hinkley Point C public inquiry on the cost of nuclear power—for differing economic cases—are set out in CEGB 4 Addendum 5. CEGB 7 Addendas 7 and 8 cover the costs of construction. Figures for decommissioning are also available in CEGB 4 and CEGB 11.

  Material tabled at the Sizewell B inquiry—which closed in March 1985—has been overtaken by that given to the Hinkley inquiry.

  I am arranging for copies of the above to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what incentives there will be to develop renewable sources of energy after the reconstruction of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) earlier today.

  Coal Industry (Pollution)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken by the coal industry to help reduce environmental pollution and use energy more efficiently.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to assist the coal industry to help reduce environmental pollution and use energy more efficiently.
  102
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is providing up to £8 million towards British Coal's £16 million topping cycle development programme at Grimethorpe. This technology offers a significant improvement in thermal efficiency compared with conventional power generation, coupled with low emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides.

  British Coal is also at present developing a comprehensive environmental policy covering all aspects of its work, including both the production and consumption of coal.

  Margam Pit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to speed up the exploitation of the Margam coal reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The timing and priority of major projects such as Margam is a matter for British Coal in the light of the overall capital allocation available to it and the commercial objectives agreed with the Government.

  Magnox Power Stations
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the terms and conditions of employment of those people currently working at Magnox power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 9 November at column 1175.

  Wave Power
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further steps he is taking to promote wave power electricity generation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department of Energy is funding a study to assess the overall United Kingdom shoreline wave energy resource. This survey is being carried out by Queen's university, Belfast.

  This study is complementary to the present research and development work funded by the Department on the shoreline rock gully device on the island of Islay.

  The objectives of the current phase are the design, manufacture and the installation of an appropriate air driven power turbine and electrical generator and the assessment of the overall productivity, reliability and cost effectiveness of the complete system when connected to the local grid.

  In February 1987 the Department published Energy Paper 54 "Energy Technologies for the United Kingdom: 1986 appraisal of research, development and demonstration". This appraisal is due to be updated and a detailed study of wave energy is now in progress as part of the overall appraisal. This study has the following objectives:
  To review the technical and commercial viability and prospects for wave energy in the United Kingdom, in the following areas;

  shoreline wave energy;

  small-scale modular offshore wave energy;

  large-scale offshore wave energy;

  To review the economic classification of shoreline and offshore wave energy technologies and determine whether they are in the "Economically Attractive", "Promising but Uncertain" or "Long Shot" categories.

  A steering group with independent members for the wave

  103
  energy study has been appointed as is our normal practice. All interested parties are being consulted during the study and at the stage of the preparation of the report.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of UKAEA Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on 19 June at columns 11–12. Since then, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has granted consent for the outline planning application for a European demonstration reprocessing plant.

  Mersey Barrage
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the proposals for a Mersey barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department of Energy and the Mersey Barrage Company are jointly funding feasibility studies into a Mersey barrage. The studies are being advanced to determine whether the Mersey Barrage Company can make an economic case for construction of a Mersey barrage. I expect to meet the chairman of the Mersey Barrage Company shortly to receive a progress report.

  Harnessing the Mersey tides could produce approximately 0·5 per cent. of the country's current electricity needs, without fossil fuel emissions, though more studies need to be done on its environmental and regional impact.

  Sellafield Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the future of THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by BNFL that good progress is being made towards completion of THORP. The fuel receipt and storage facility is operational and commercial reprocessing is expected to begin in late 1992. The company already has contracts valued up to £5 billion which will pay for its investment in the plant.

  Offshore Oil Industry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the union representatives in the offshore oil industry; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Mr. Campbell Christie, general secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress with other trade union representatives on 7 November for a general discussion.

  I chair regular meetings of the offshore industry liaison committee which is a tripartite body including representatives of Government, industry, and the unions. That committee provides a useful forum for discussion of matters relating to the United Kingdom continental shelf. The last meeting on 3 October provided an opportunity for a review of United Kingdom continental shelf developments, and skill shortages.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of coal were imported into Great Britain at the latest available date; if he will list the names of the countries and the respective amounts of coal from each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Information is available for the period January to September 1989 as shown in the table.

  January to September 1989

  Country of origin

  Quantity1 (thousand tonnes)

  United States of America

  3,538

  Australia

  1,643

  Poland

  694

  Canada

  565

  Colombia

  480

  China

  405

  South Africa

  303

  Federal Republic of Germany

  213

  USSR

  157

  Netherlands

  133

  Panama

  106

  Venezuela

  86

  Belgium

  61

  France

  42

  Norway

  37

  Others

  80

  Total

  8,544

  1 Figures are rounded independently and the total may therefore differ from the sum of the constituent parts.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Figures for earlier years are published on an annual basis in table 74 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics".

  Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his most recent estimates for the costs of decommissioning Magnox, advanced gas-cooled reactor and pressurised water reactor power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for the operators of such plant. I am asking the chairmen of the CEGB, SSEB and BNFL to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what are the current estimates of the date of decommissioning of each nuclear power station;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of decommissioning each nuclear power station.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The point at which each nuclear power station will be taken out of service is a matter for the operator to decide taking account of the circumstances at the time. Estimation of the cost of decommissioning each station is also a matter for the operator.

  CEGB
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West, 28 July,Official Report, column 981, when he wrote to the Central Electricity Generating Board requesting that they reply to the hon. Member.
  105
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  An official from my Department wrote to the CEGB chairman's office on 31 July 1989.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the annual report of the Central Electricity Generating Board for 1988–89.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Preparation and publication of the annual report and accounts are a matter for the board of the CEGB. I am assured that the accounts will be published as soon as is possible.

  Paper-making
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on what Government-sponsored research is either currently taking place or likely to be commissioned in the near future to evaluate the energy consumption rates of different methods of making paper.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As part of their new energy efficiency best practice programme my Energy Efficiency Office will be producing energy consumption guides for various processes in a number of industries. It is presently examining the scope for doing so in the papermaking industry.

  Gas Flaring
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much gas has been flared off in each year since United Kingdom continental shelf oil productions commenced.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Details of the amounts of gas flared from producing oil fields in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each of the years 1978 to 1988 have been published each year since 1979 in my Department's annual report to Parliament (the Brown Book). Figures for years 1975, when UKCS production started, to 1977 are riot available.

  Scottish Coal
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current monthly output from the Scottish coalfields of(a) deep-mined and (b) opencast power station coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Coal. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information his Department's records show about the party affiliations, if any, of non-executive members of electricity boards.

  Mr. Wakeham
  We do not collect this information in the Department.

  Electricity Distribution
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the length of the reasonable period ahead over which the distribution companies will need to be clear about their obligations.
  106
  Mr. Wakeham
  The nature and extent of the distribution companies' obligations will be fully disclosed in the prospectus.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the cost of flue gas desulphurisation of each 2000 MW fossil-fuel-fired station.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The precise financial commitment to flue gas desulphurisation will be a commercial matter for the generating companies themselves.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the financial commitment of PowerGen to flue gas desulphurisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  PowerGen will have to comply with the limits set out in the large combustion plant directive agreed in 1988. The precise financial commitment to flue gas desulphurisation will be a commercial matter for the company itself.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the cost of providing fuel for Sizewell B.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Questions about the costs of individual power stations are a matter for the CEGB.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the intended capacity of the plant to fabricate fuel for Sizewell B.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Most of the production operations for Sizewell B fuel, for which BNFL is currently bidding, would be carried out in plants which also produce fuel for the AGR stations. The combined capacity of these plants is around 300 tonnes of uranium a year. The final assembly work would take place in an existing plant with a capacity of 200 tonnes of uranium a year.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what facilities provided or to be provided by the Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., the nuclear installations inspectorate or NIREX, respectively, are intended solely to service the needs of Sizewell B pressurised water reactor.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has been involved in all stages of the licensing of Sizewell B, and will continue to deploy its resources in the best possible way to ensure that operators of nuclear installations comply with their statutory requirements for safety. I will ask the chairmen of the other organisations referred to in the hon. Member's question to write directly to him.

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

NHS Hospitals: Data
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the numbers of patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in March 1988 and 1989 and the number of available beds on the same dates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, data for the financial year ending 31st March 1989 are not yet available. In the financial year ending 31st March 1988 8·2 million in-patient cases were treated in NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. The average daily number of available beds was 388,000.
The Government hope to publish the data for England in a statistical bulletin within the next two months.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. The figures were certainly published in some form and were quoted by his honourable friend Mr. Mellor in another place. Will the Minister confirm that the total number of patients awaiting treatment in March 1989 was 922,000—that is the worst figure for six years—and that there was a fall in the number of patients treated and the number of beds available on that date? Why does the performance in those respects appear to be getting worse within the National Health Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not confirm the figures because I believe that they are provisional. I ask the noble Lord to wait for two or three months until we have better figures. However, waiting times are more important than waiting lists. Half of all patients are admitted to hospital immediately. Of those admitted from waiting lists half are admitted within five weeks or less. We accept that in some areas patients have to wait too long for treatment. It is on that small but worrying proportion that we wish to concentrate our effort.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister explain why his honourable friend Mr. Mellor made comments and referred to certain statistics? He said that the latest statistics are impressive by anyone's standards. Can the Minister explain why he does not have the same figures?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know from what my honourable friend was quoting but I understand that the figures are provisional. It would be safer to wait until the actual figures for England are published in about two months' time.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the past 15 to 20 years there has been a dramatic change in the demand for hospital beds? For example, 20 years ago the replacement of hips was unknown, as were heart transplants and so forth. There has been a tremendous advance in medical science. Does that change of demand which is now prevalent in the National Health Service have anything to do with the figures which he has been talking about —or not been talking about?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is relevant and I accept the fact that the number of beds has fallen over the past 10 years. However, the usage of the beds has increased dramatically. In 1987–88 there were 21 in-patient cases per bed whereas 10 years ago the figure was approximately 14. Similarly, the average length of stay in the acute sector fell from 9·4 days in 1978 to seven days in 1987–88. That is due to changes in medical technology and in the forms of treatment offered.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I believe that my question comes within the scope of that on the Order Paper. Does the Minister agree that the time now spent waiting to see a specialist has risen to six or more weeks and that it is appalling to have to wait so long for a diagnosis?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no figures showing the length of time that people must wait in order to see a specialist. We do not believe that the numbers on the waiting lists are relevant but rather the speed with which they are admitted. The mean waiting time is now approximately five weeks.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the serious situation which is developing throughout the country, particularly in the South-East, is due to the fact that many authorities are trying to balance their budgets? Therefore, in order to make ends meet they are cutting down the number of wards and thereby reducing the number of beds. I am particularly concerned about Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup, where the situation is almost beyond belief.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not see that the question is relevant to that on the Order Paper. As I have stated, the usage of beds is increasing because changes in medical technology mean that consultants are able to discharge patients sooner.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the demand for beds may depend on the state of health of the nation or on an epidemic at any one time? Does he also agree that it is extremely difficult to make a comparison concerning the demand for beds or for treatment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that. The number of in-patient cases treated has risen over the past 10 years from about 6,706,000 to about 8,200,000 in 1987–88.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister is speaking of weeks and months. My head taxi driver

1079
had to wait two and a half years for a hip operation and he had that done last year. Is that not quite ridiculous?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accepted that there were problems. I cannot comment on individual cases, but if the noble Lord will write to me no doubt I shall look into the matter. We have accepted that on some occasions there are problems and we are doing what we can to reduce those times.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what is the increase in the use of day beds? Is that one factor which is increasing the curing of patients with less use of beds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no figures for increased use of day beds. Of course, the facility is available for doctors to make greater use of day beds rather than keeping people in hospital. That would be a matter for an individual consultant if he felt that that facility was right for a particular patient.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the number of out-patients treated fell for the first time in years and the number treated as day cases is more than 16 per cent. lower than in the previous annual figures? I know that the Minister said that he does not have the figures but they are published in the Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England, 1989 edition. For £10.25, at the expense of Her Majesty's Government, he could have the same figures as I have.
Lord Henley: My Lords, according to my figures the number of out-patients has increased. As I said, I do not have the figures for 1988–89. They are provisional.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, when there are cuts in the availability of hospital beds is that not done in order to preserve the very large expansion of non-medical staff; that is, ancillary staff? Is it not a shame that that is a priority rather than the reverse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I explained earlier, my noble friend is right in saying that the number of beds has fallen, but the number of people we have treated has increased because there is a greater throughput of people using the beds.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, until this year.

Refugees: UN Commission
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to ensure that the work of the United Nations Commission for Refugees to protect and support refugees will not be cut back by the present financial pressures.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we fully
1080
support the package of financial measures agreed at the October meeting of the executive committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, including provision for a guaranteed level of income next year. We are playing our full part in the temporary working group of executive committee members established to make further recommendations on the UNHCR's financial situation. We hope these measures will establish a sound basis for the UNHCR's future activities, so as to avoid cutbacks in the vital tasks of protection and support of refugees.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's Answer but I felt that it in no way reflected the true gravity of the situation. Is the Minister aware that there is a real danger of the UNHCR not being able to cope with the enormous rate of refugees —at present 14 million —on its reduced budget for next year? Is he aware that the vast majority of those refugees are in third world asylum countries which are little able to deal with an increased cost if the UNHCR programmes are cut?
Will the Minister give a commitment that Her Majesty's Government will give a lead in the pledging conference in New York next month substantially to increase their contribution to the UNHCR so that it can carry out its important work for these unfortunate people, most of whom are women and children?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly do not deny the concern expressed by the noble Baroness. Her Majesty's Government will play a role in the financial package discussions and the working group towards the resolution of this problem. That is absolutely certain. This country's contribution this year has been the highest ever and certainly we are third in the world in terms of contributions after the commitments of the United States and Japan.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for rising immediately after my noble friend on the Front Bench. I ask the noble Lord a question which is of considerable importance and interest to this House; namely, what representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the commission about the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong and what response has come from the commission?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a slightly different question from the commission's financial situation, to which the Question on the Order Paper refers. However, the noble Lord will be aware that we are in touch with the UNHCR as regards the Vietnamese boat people. While it is looking at the problem of the refugees involved there, we would obviously like it to be more concerned about the non-refugees —the so-called economic refugees.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so kind as to look at an article in this morning's Guardian by Mr. Edward Heath, the last Conservative Prime Minister —and I prefer to say "the last"? Is he aware that were he to do so he

1081
would see in the article —I shall not weary the House by trying to describe it —the bearing on the point raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not yet read the article to which the noble Lord refers but I shall obviously try to find time to extend my reading to that newspaper and in particular to the article by that author.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the point brought up by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. Is he aware that UNHCR is totally opposed to the forced repatriation of the Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong? Can the Minister say how, in order to encourage a voluntary repatriation, Her Majesty's Government can give some form of economic and structural aid to Vietnam as has already been proposed to them by the British Refugee Council?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, aid to Vietnam is a very different question from the one on the Order Paper. I am well aware of the views of the British Refugee Council, having heard them at first hand from the noble Lord sitting next to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite. We shall have an opportunity at Question Time tomorrow to discuss the situation in Hong Kong.

Education: Assessment and Testing
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Task Group on Assessment and Testing report's recommendations on teacher involvement in assessment are to be implemented.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 7th June 1988 that in the light of the TGAT report the Government had decided to adopt the main principles set out in that statement. Full details of how these should be translated into practice are under consideration by the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council. These and related matters will be set out in statutory orders to be made under Section 4 of the Education Reform Act, the first of which will be issued next year.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, is he aware that the DES guide for parents on the national curriculum states quite clearly that children's progress will be measured partly by teachers' assessment and partly by national tests known as standard assessment tests? Is he aware that in spite of this commitment on the part of the DES, the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council has done very little to support teachers' assessment, whereas it has already spent nearly £20 million on the development of standard assessment tasks? In the light of that, can the noble Viscount say how the system of moderation will take
1082
into account the need for more formative assessment by teachers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council has offered interim advice on the assessment system, which was welcomed by the Secretary of State. Further advice is expected shortly which will form the basis for assessment orders to be made next year under Section 4 of the Education Reform Act. I understand the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness, and I assure her that for the moment I am explaining the council's interim advice; but its comprehensive advice will be received by the end of the year.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present situation For teachers is confused and confusing? They are faced with assessing on a day by day basis their pupils from the age of five in 10 different subjects against 17 attainment targets at 10 levels. At the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16 the children are faced with standard attainment targets as well as further assessments —of which, incidentally, the teachers know nothing —not to mention the records of achievement that are to be brought in at the age of 16-plus and the GCSE. Does the Minister not agree that this is a formidable situation for teachers? One wonders whether there will be any time left for teaching. What can be done to clarify and ease the position for those teachers who are faced with this situation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, I am fully aware of the anxiety which has been expressed. I assure the noble Lord that these matters will be taken into account by my right honourable friend.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Government give special attention to the recommendation in the report that assessment tasks be reviewed regularly for evidence of bias, particularly in respect of gender and race? Is the Minister aware that this is not as straightforward as it sounds? For example, girls will tend to score higher than boys at certain ages and in certain areas of study, and vice versa. In those circumstances, does the Minister accept that these are difficulties which require a great deal of work, and perhaps more importantly very considerable resources, if the whole edifice on which the Government's testing is based is not to fail?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Lord says. I am sure that at certain ages girls score better than boys.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I had better not follow that remark! The Government are surely fully committed to teacher assessment. There have been statements made on that topic by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in this House, and by the former Secretary of State. Am I right in understanding that, whatever else the Minister was saying, the Government remain fully committed to teacher assessment as part of the assessment procedure? It is impossible to see how anything can take place without the teachers. Will he not then draw to the

1083
attention of the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council the Government's commitment to teacher assessment? That appears to be the one group which does not understand the commitment to teachers in this matter.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I affirm that the Government are committed to teacher assessment. As I said earlier, the council's advice at the moment is only interim. Its comprehensive advice will be received by the end of the year, when I believe the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not he has studied the American practice, which appears to be effective, whereby not only teachers assess pupils, but pupils assess teachers at the end of each term? This throws up in respect of the staff the really effective teachers in the classroom, which is as important as pupil assessment by teachers.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can only tell my noble friend that when I was at school I should never have dared to do that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful that the noble Lord has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to teacher assessment. In the light of that, is he prepared to ask the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council if it can prepare much more in the way of in-service training for those teachers who will be involved in assessment? That is 100 per cent. of them.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass the comments of the noble Baroness to the board.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether there are any teachers here who have done what I used to do in class, which was to allow the young to get up, put their hands up and say, "Sir, you are being boring".
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have just had an idea!

NHS Hospitals: Casualty Departments
2.57 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are currently taking to upgrade casualty departments in National Health Service hospitals, and whether they are satisfied with staffing ratios.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in general our accident and emergency departments provide excellent care. A recent Royal College of Surgeons' report identified a need for improvements in the care of the most seriously injured. Following consultations, the Department of Health is giving urgent consideration to these aspects of care.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and kinsman for that Answer, which is partly satisfactory. Will he accept that there is general agreement that there has been improvement in the upgrading of casualty departments? Further, is he aware that at weekends there are real problems both of accommodation for the staff and for patients waiting for treatment, particularly in regard to road accidents, altercations and other such serious problems? Can he also say, where additional staff, particularly doctors, have to be brought in on a short-term or long-term basis, that regional health authorities will not be penalised and that extra funds will be available? Does not the Minister accept that, by doing that, a more efficient service will be given?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not aware of any specific problems with regard to weekend facilities in accident and emergency departments. If my noble kinsman knows of any specific instances, I shall be most grateful if he will bring them to my attention. It is for the health authority management locally to decide what level of staffing is necessary and to ensure that that is provided.
Regarding additional staff in an accident and emergency department, again it is a matter for the local health authority to make its own decisions as to what additional staff to take on and to fund that from its existing budget. However, from time to time central funding is provided for specific initiatives. An example of that would be the 100 extra consultant posts made available under Achieving a Balance. It will, however, be a matter for the health authority to make a bid if it considers that central funding is appropriate for its needs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Question refers to upgrading casualty departments. What yardstick is used for that, bearing in mind that some casualty departments are terribly busy? I think of Guy's Hospital in my own locality where the casualty department is out of this world. How do you grade them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, some casualty departments are better than others. We recognised the fact that some needed improvement and that is what both the department and the Royal College of Surgeons have been looking at.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been severe criticism of the Government's policy as regards more centralisation of casualty departments? Centralisation has resulted in the closure of some of the outlying hospitals which historically had casualty departments that worked very well. Is the Minister aware that this situation is causing great concern among people who have to go longer distances for emergency treatment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I recognise the concern. However, it is very difficult to get the balance exactly right between having a great number of accident and emergency departments that it might not be possible to fund adequately or having fewer and better departments with more time to provide care. I

1085
believe that is another problem which the Royal College of Surgeons addressed. As I said originally, we are considering its report.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is there any connection between ambulances and hospitals so as to prevent people being taken to a hospital which is too busy to cope and taken to another hospital which can cope? I particularly have in mind London where there are plenty of hospitals available.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have always stated that we recognise the importance of the ambulance service in terms of getting patients to hospitals.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, since the Minister has raised the question of the ambulance service, has he a statement to make concerning any action that may be taken by the Secretary of State in the light of the initiative taken by the ambulancemen over the weekend? It would be very encouraging for all those who are extremely concerned at the present basis of cover.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that we are not going to be drawn on to the subject of the ambulance dispute.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that consideration of the Commons amendments to the Companies Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill will be taken.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope that the House will bear with me if I say a brief word about the arrangements for next week's debate on the Address. My noble friends on this side of the House take the view that this House should have more time for this important debate. After all, this is the debate which sets the scene for the Session. It gives noble Lords on all sides the chance to comment on the Gracious Speech and its varied contents; namely, foreign affairs, defence and the whole range of domestic policies.
We on this side of the House believe that the three days allocated in the past are totally inadequate at this time; inadequate to enable noble Lords on all sides of the House to cover all the relevant subjects. We find that we have to telescope a number of departmental subjects into one day's debate. That is not an efficient or satisfactory way to do business. It also makes for an untidy discussion. We have of course made representations to the noble Lord and the Government Chief Whip in previous years, but so far without success.
The other place debates the same document and allows itself six days, which is double what is proposed for this House. I do not argue that we should go to that length. I suggest that we should
1086
extend the debate by one day; namely, Monday week, to enable us to cover the ground more thoroughly. I hope that this suggestion will not be regarded as unreasonable, because it is the Government themselves who have made the request inevitable by increasing the legislative workload year by year. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will concede the justice of this case.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wish to add the voice of noble Lords on these Benches to the plea made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to us that the middle day is very crowded. Also, now that the subject of the environment has been added to the debate on the economy on the third day, that day too has become seriously overcrowded. Surely a full day should be available for discussion of the economy and related subjects. All the departmental briefs apart from foreign affairs and defence have been crowded on to the middle day, which seems an excessive amount of work to get through in one day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says. As always, the noble Lord has made the reasons for his intervention absolutely clear. The House has also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said from the Liberal Front Bench. My first reaction is that this is a matter affecting the whole House and therefore we should consider it through the usual channels. I give an undertaking to the House that I shall convene a quick meeting, using what we call the Leaders' and Whips' machinery, in order to look at the question.
I wish to make one point only. I know that administrative convenience is never a good argument, but the present arrangements have been agreed through the usual channels. Quite a number of your Lordships have the dates in their diaries. I shall not conceal from your Lordships that noble Lords have been telephoning and asking on what day they should speak as they wish to speak on a particular subject. I believe that the question and other matters should be considered by an all-party meeting. As I have said, I undertake to convene such a meeting quickly with a view to making a Business Statement to the House the day after tomorrow.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to that meeting, will he bear in mind the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff; namely, that if there are four days, the subjects can be divided far more logically and clearly than if they are compressed into three days?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly bear that point in mind. I shall not conceal from your Lordships that that was the one point on which I was not wholly clear. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is normally clarity itself. He said that the middle day was unduly congested, which does not include, as the plans stand, the environment. He then implied that the subject of the environment merited a day on its own. Perhaps that is a matter that we can discuss in the meeting that I intend to convene.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I admit to being one of the principal grumblers about this matter. It is quite humiliating that the Opposition should have to make an application to have use of the time of the House. I believe that sometimes we have a stronger claim than appears to be conceded. When I speak to more experienced Members about this kind of situation, they say, "Oh, but we never do". That is the trouble with this House —we never do. I am suggesting that for a change we do.
I ask noble Lords to consider that, while the other place is continuing the debate on the Address on the Friday and the Monday, we shall be away. Our debate is interrupted and the rhythm, the momentum and the spirit of it all disappear between Thursday evening and Tuesday. That is a long time to be absent from a topic which is really a continuous whole.
We shall be considering the trend of the Government's policies. This Queen's Speech may be the last of this Parliament but it is more likely to be the next to last. In the present political situation we can be excused for wanting to know a little more closely where the Government believe they are going. This is the time to do that. If what we read in the newspapers is true, there are some troublesome matters coming forward. We are not in for a very pleasant new Session —at least, not at the beginning. It is quite obvious that a number of us are going to have a spoilt Christmas because some people wish to intrude an unpleasant subject upon the House before then. It is not going to be good going.
As regards this side of the House, we want to hear the noise of a foot being put down occasionally concerning our wants. We are part of the House and of the institution. I suggest that, when an earnest plea is made by the Leader of the Opposition, supported for once by vocal observations from the Back Benches, then more favourable consideration should be given to the matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps this should be my last response as I have offered a meeting with all parties. It is a matter which affects the House. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made the point that we intend not to sit on the Friday following the State Opening and not, as things stand at the moment, on the following Monday, when another place will be sitting. While I am agog to hear what the noble Lord will say on the debate on the humble Address, I am not sure that other noble Lords would necessarily, even for the noble Lord, want to come to the House on the Friday of that week.
A serious point should be made. One characteristic distinguishes your Lordships' House from another place. Whereas we work just as hard throughout the year as another place, there is a period between the time of the State Opening and Christmas when we have just a little more time to be able to find moments to debate matters of general interest. That is one of the reasons, although it is only one, why in the past there has not been pressure for an extra day on the debate on the humble Address. Nonetheless, the point has been put to me from all sides of the House. I am ready to convene an all-party meeting
1088
and I have offered to come back to make a Business Statement on Wednesday.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point from this side of the House. The longer the debate, the better the opportunity for those of us who are usually critical to declare our unwavering support for the Government.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now further considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now 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
272 After Clause 152, insert the following new Clause —
'Power to make further provision by regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such further provision as appears to him necessary 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 adaptations 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.
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, we continue the debate on Amendment No. 272A, which I move yet again. Last Thursday evening there was some debate of an inconclusive nature. I note that a number of noble Lords opposite display varying degrees of interest in the legislation. On the first day 223 noble Lords went through the Division Lobby to vote against my amendment. On Thursday evening there were only 18. I hope that the important arguments which I shall deploy today will ensure that noble Lords opposite turn up in sufficient numbers to make sure that the House can continue its business on Commons amendments to the Companies Bill.

1089
The essence of the Commons amendment with which I seek to disagree is that the Secretary of State,
"may by regulations make such further provision as appears to him necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Part". This Part of the Bill —Part VII —deals with insolvency and amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986. The purpose of this Part is to ensure that the insolvency provisions do not impede the operations of financial markets. It is exceptional in almost all respects, in that it cuts across the central feature of the Insolvency Act 1986, which is pari passu treatment for bankruptcy creditors. It opens up that principle yet again.
We thought that we had dealt with the matter in the 1986 Act. But we find here, in a Commons amendment, provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations amending the primary legislation if he decides that there is a better way to do it. As I said on Thursday evening, we are opposed to the general principle that the Secretary of State can amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. We wish it to be amended by primary legislation. It is worse in this case because, if the Secretary of State, or any future Secretary of State, decides that there is a better way of doing it, he can amend the whole of Part VII. We oppose this clause. I very much hope that the House will agree with my Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I explained at some length, when speaking to this matter earlier, the reasons why we have found it necessary to take powers of this kind for the purposes of this Part of the Bill. I hope it will not be necessary to take up the time of the House by repeating that explanation now.
I would make three brief points. First, I do not believe that there is any fundamental difference of view, in this House or elsewhere, on the importance of safeguarding the effective operation of the financial markets. Part VII provides the means for doing that. While we have quite rightly debated several points of detail, nobody has been able to propose a better way of dealing with the uncertainties which have been identified.
Secondly, if it is accepted that something must be done, then it is vital that the solution is, and remains, fully effective. The problems are complex and so, inevitably, is Part VII. We have consulted extensively and have proposed a number of changes since the Part was introduced. It is consultation as much as anything that has persuaded us that we need to be more flexible than we earlier thought, to be sure that the Part is capable of working effectively for all the different markets to which it may apply, not just now, but in the light of future changes in the markets and the way they operate.
Finally, I should like to respond to one specific point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in relation to the provision to make regulations,
"for integrating the provisions of this Part with the general law of insolvency".
1090
This is not a matter of "junking" the existing provisions and "deciding on something rather different", as the noble Lord put it. On the contrary, it is a matter of being able to make any further detailed technical provision which may prove necessary to ensure that the special procedures provided for in the Part will mesh smoothly with the procedures for conducting insolvencies generally. This can only be in the interests of practitioners and creditors generally, and I would have hoped that the noble Lord would welcome that.
These provisions are the result of widespread consultation with the practitioners, consultation in which the noble Lord himself has been involved in a distinguished way. I hope therefore that, on reflection, he will think it right not to press his Motion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as always, for his response. It is certainly true that there has been extensive consultation. There has been extensive consultation subsequent to the original introduction of Part VII at First Reading in this House. There was no consultation on Part VII other than on the generalities. This was for the obvious reason, which I fully understand and insolvency practitioners understand, that it is difficult to consult until one has something specific on which one wants to consult. Since then there has been extensive consultation.
This Bill has been with Parliament for a year. It is just about one year since the Second Reading debate in this House. If in the course of one year the Government cannot get their ideas together, co-ordinated and properly thought through in full consultation with all the bodies which are properly involved, it is a sad state of affairs. The noble Lord says that the provisions are technical. That is not what the Commons amendment indicates. It refers to,
"integrating the provisions of this Part with the general law of insolvency".
The general law of insolvency is set out in the Insolvency Act 1986. If there has been widespread consultation, that should have been done by now. I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's arguments. We are all agreed that the financial markets have to be protected. But if the Government have not been able in the past year to come forward with the right solution, I am sorry but they have not been doing their duty properly. That is my object in pressing the amendment.
3.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Blackstone, B.

Ardwick, E.

Blease, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

1091

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Longford, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Reilly, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rugby, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Soper, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kennet, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Ironside, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allerton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alport, L.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Annaly, L.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lovat, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blanch, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brightman, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cockfield, L.

Morris, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

De Freyne, L.

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Effingham, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elibank, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Porritt, L.

Elton, L.

Pym, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Foley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Slim, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathspey, L.

Havers, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hesketh, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hood, V.

Tranmire, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

1092

Trumpington, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 272 agreed to.
3.27 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
273 After Clause 153, insert the following new Clause—
Construction of references to parties to market contracts
'.—(1) Where a person enters into market contracts in more than one capacity, the provisions of this Part apply (subject as follows) as if the contracts entered into in each different capacity were entered into by different persons.
(2) References in this Part to a market contract to which a person is a party include (subject as follows, and unless the context otherwise requires) contracts to which he is party as agent.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations —

(a) modify or exclude the operation of subsections (1) and (2), and

(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded for the purposes of those provisions as acting in different capacities.'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 273.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
274 Clause 154, page 150, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'unable' and insert 'for the taking of action in the event of a person appearing to be'.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 274. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 486 to 492.
Amendment No. 274 makes a consequential amendment to the definition of default rules under Clause 154. The remaining amendments in this group concern Schedule 16 which deals with additional requirements for recognition of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
275 Clause 154, page 150, line 20, at end insert —
'(4) If an exchange or clearing house takes action under its default rules in respect of a person, all subsequent proceedings under its rules for the purposes of or in connection with the settlement of market contracts to which the defaulter is a party shall be treated as done under its default rules.'.
276 Page 150, line 32, leave out '(or, in Scotland, as jucicial factor)'.
277 Page 150, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert —
'(2) In subsection (1)(b) "company" means any company, society, association, partnership or other body which may be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986.'.
278 Clause 156, page 150, line 44, at end insert —
'"administrative receiver" has the meaning given by section 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986;'.
279 Page 150, line 48, at end insert —
'"interim trustee" and "permanent trustee" have the same meaning as in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985;'.
280 Page 151, line 6, at end insert —
'"set off", in relation to Scotland, includes compensation;'.
281 Page 151, line 10, at end insert —
'(1A) References in this Part to settlement in relation to a market contract are to the discharge of the rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract, whether by performance, compromise or otherwise.
(1B) In this Part the expressions "margin" and "cover for margin" have the same meaning.'.
282 Page 151, line 12, at end insert —
'(2A) For the purposes of this Part a person shall be taken to have notice of a matter if he deliberately failed to make enquiries as to that matter in circumstances in which a reasonable and honest person would have done so.
This does not apply for the purposes of a provision requiring "actual notice".'.
283 Page 151, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
284 Page 151, line 18, at end insert '; and in relation to a building society references to insolvency law or to any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 are to that law or provision as modified by the Building Societies Act 1986.'.
285 Page 151, line 18, at end insert —
'(5) In relation to Scotland, references in this Part —

(a) to sequestration include references to the administration by a judicial factor of the insolvent estate of a deceased person, and

(b) to an interim or permanent trustee include references to a judicial factor on the insolvent estate of a deceased person,

unless the context otherwise requires.'.
286 Clause 157, page 151, line 21, at end insert —

'administrative receiver

section 156(1)'.

287 Page 151, line 23, at end insert —

'cover for margin

section 156(1B)'.

288 Page 151, line 27, at end insert —

'interim trustee

section 156(1) and (5)(b)'.

289 Page 151, line 29, at end insert —

'margin

section 156(1)B'.

290 Page 151, line 31, at end insert —

'notice

section 156(2A)'.

291 Page 151, line 34, column 2, leave out '156(3)' and insert
'(construction of references to parties to market contract)'.
292 Page 151, line 34, at end insert —

'permanent trustee

section 156(1) and (5)(b)'.

293 Page 151, line 36, at end insert —

'sequestration

section 156(a)

settlement and related expressions

section 156(1A)

(in relation to a market contract) set off (in relation to Scotland)

section 156(1)'.

294 Page 151, line 37, at end insert —

'trustee, interim or permanent (in relation to Scotland)

section 156(5)(b)'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 275 to 294.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. — (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
295 After Clause 157, under the heading 'Amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986', insert the following new Clause —
'Statements of principle
'. In Chapter V of Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (conduct of investment business), after section 47 insert —
47A. — (1) The Secretary of State may issue statements of principle with respect to the conduct and financial standing expected of persons authorised to carry on investment business.
(2) The conduct expected may include compliance with a code or standard issued by another person, as for the time being in force, and may allow for the exercise of discretion by any person pursuant to any such code or standard.
(3) Failure to comply with a statement of principle under this section is a ground for the taking of disciplinary action or the exercise of powers of intervention, but it does not of itself give rise to any right of action by investors or other persons affected or affect the validity of any transaction.
(4) The discipinary action which may be taken by virtue of subsection (3) is—

(a) the withdrawal or suspension of authorisation under section 28 or the termination or suspension of authorisation under section 33,

(b) the giving of a disqualification direction under section 59,

(c) the making of a public statement under section 60, or

(d) the application by the Secretary of State for an injunction, interdict or other order under section 61(1).

and the reference in that subsection to powers of intervention is to the powers conferred by Chapter VI of this Part.
(5) Where a statement of principle relates to compliance with a code or standard issued by another person, the statement of principle may provide —

(a) that failure to comply with the code or standard shall be a ground for the taking of disciplinary action, or the exercise of powers of intervention, only in such cases and to such extent as may be specified; and

(b) that no such action shall be take., or any such power exercised, except at the request of the person by whom the code or standard in question was issued.

(6) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers in such manner as appears to him appropriate to secure compliance with statements of principle under this section.
Modification or waiver of statements of principle in particular cases.
47B. — (1) The relevant regulatory authority may on the application of any person —

(a) modify a statement of principle issued under section 47A so as to adapt it to his circumstances or to any particular kind of business carried on by him, or

(b) dispense him from compliance with any such statement of principle, generally or in relation to any particular kind of business carried on by him.

(2) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised unless it appears to the relevant regulatory authority —

(a) that compliance with the statement of principle in question would be unduly burdensome for the

1095
applicant having regard to the benefit which compliance would confer on investors, and

(b) that the exercise of those powers will not result in any undue risk to investors.

(3) The powers conferred by this section may be exercised unconditionally or subject to conditions; and section 47A(3) applies in the case of failure to comply with a condition as in the case of failure to comply with a statement of principle.
(4) The relevant regulatory authority for the purposes of this section is —

(a) in the case of a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation or professional body, in relation to investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the organisation or body, that organisation or body;

(b) in any case, or in relation to other investment business, the Secretary of State.

(5) The references in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 and paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 3 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisations and professional bodies) to monitoring and enforcement of compliance with statements of principle include monitoring and enforcement of compliance with conditions imposed by the organisation or body under this section.".'.
Lord Tregarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 295. In moving this amendment I hope that it will be convenient to the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 297 to 299, 306, 313 and 494.
The Financial Services Act 1986 represented a major step forward in investor protection, but experience since its enactment has shown that some modification is necessary to achieve the flexibility of operation which was intended. I am certain that your Lordships will recall the debate we had on the subject on Second Reading when we heard distinguised contributions from many noble Lords. I should especially like to recall the speech made by my noble friend Lord Jenking of Roding, who I am happy to see is in his place this afternoon, and that made by my noble friend Lord Elton. Both noble Lords brought to bear on the subject their valuable experience: one as a practitioner and the other as the chairman of FIMBRA. In the consultative process which followed, the Government were grateful for the helpful contributions from the recognised self-regulating organisations, not least FIMBRA chaired by my noble friend.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with a detailed analysis of the effect of the amendment, although I shall be entirely happy to answer any questions that are raised. Taken together, the amendments provide for more flexibility in the operation of the Financial Services Act. First, the SIB will be able to issue a statement of principles. That statement of priciples will be the guiding light of firms engaged in investment business, and the breach of such a statement will form grounds for the exercise of its disciplinary functions. It will not, however, give use to a right of civil action for investors. I should perhaps mention that in the light of the way the SIB proposes to exercise that power, it is not the Government's present intention to commence new Section 47B.
Firms will also continue to be subject to rules which give rise to civil rights. The change that we
1096
propose in that area is to give the SIB the power to designate certain core rules as applying to all SRO members, subject to whatever modification may be necessary to adapt them to the circumstances of a particular SRO.
The SIB will also have the power to issue codes of practice which will have evidential value in relation to the principles or the rules. In addition —this is a matter covered by Amendment No. 305 to which we shall come later —the recognition test for SROs and professional bodies will be amended so that they will have to satisfy the SIB that their rules, in the context of the principles, and so forth, will afford investors an adequate level of investor protection. That test replaces the equivalent test in the Act, which has given rise to some difficulty in interpretation. The new test is one of adequacy. It will be applied in each case by the SIB, and the SIB has made it clear that it will apply it equally to all SROs and RPBs.
While the rules may differ between SROs and RPBs, the SIB has confirmed its intention to ensure that the effectiveness of investor protection will not. Any idea that one will provide an easier regime for practitioners or a greater risk for investors than the other is therefore entirely without foundation.
I should also mention Amendment No. 306, which will require the regulatory bodies to take compliance costs into account when making their rules. Experience suggests that that provision is desirable to back up the understandable desire of practitioners to achieve the desired level of investor protection at least cost. The other main effect of the amendment is to clarify the extent to which the SIB can rely upon other regulators, both domestic and foreign, and to give it the ability to use its own powers in support of action by a foreign regulator.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of the House —my noble friend has already adverted to it —that in Committee on 6th March, which seems a long time ago, I moved an amendment to suggest that the regulatory system under the Financial Services Act should take a form different from that which was originally enacted and for which, I have to say, I voted in another place. I argued at the time that we needed some statements of principle coupled with what I described as a kind of Highway Code—rules of guidance.
However, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, who replied to the debate, went a long way towards convincing me that that by itself would not be enough. With others, I gave a good deal more thought to the matter. Some of those thoughts I expressed in a speech when I opened the Yorkshire Money Show in Bradford, because what seemed to me to lie at the heart of what was wrong with the original form was that the rules were trying to do two things: they were trying to regulate the professions, the brokers and other bodies, and trying to confer rights of compensation on individual investors. It seemed to me and to others—the Law

1097
Society among them —that any system which tried to do both those things with the same set of rules was bound to become cumbersome and detailed, which is what happened.
Therefore, I do not need to emphasise how warmly I welcome the amendments, because we have now a sensible three-tier system. We have a statement of principles by which the professions will be regulated, and there will be guidance, as I suggested. The code will not of itself give rise to disciplinary procedures but will have evidential value only. We shall have rules, themselves two-tier, which is the only point I wish to put to my noble friend. There will be rules, which are sometimes called the core rules (the SIB can designate some of its rules as core rules) which apply through the SROs to the individual members of the profession being regulated. However, it is open to the SROs to modify or amplify the rules which are not designated as core rules and it is on that point that I wish to sound a note of caution.
Perhaps I may pay tribute to the chairman of the SIB, Mr. David Walker, who has devoted an enormous amount of successful effort to the changes. It is the intention of the SIB that the rules which are promulgated by the individual SROs or RPBs should be only the minimum necessary to ensure adequacy of protection, relative to the particular professions and trades which are being regulated. There is already some evidence that at least two of the SROs, IMRO and LAUTRO —I apologise for the acronyms but they have become so usual that one is justified in using them —are proving extraordinarily reluctant to abandon any of their original rule book. That will go some way towards defeating the purpose of the new legislation.
There is a safeguard in the Bill because it requires the assent of the SIB before an SRO's rule book can so modify the SIB's own rules. I urge the Government and, through the Government, the SIB to use that power strenuously because it will defeat the purpose of these extremely beneficial amendments if the existing bureaucracies in those SROs stand guard on their existing rule book, with all its details, merely because it is there and they think that it is necessary to enable them to perform their regulatory functions.
The main core of the scheme must be the principles, the codes of guidance and the central rules (the core rules) made by the SIB. I hope that what is added at the third tier —at the level of the SROs or RPBs —will be the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate level of protection. It does not look as though that is happening at the moment.
While my noble friend and his colleagues rightly bask in the approval of the House for this string of amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Williams, shakes his head —or at least the approval of this side of the House, will he also take note of the fears that I have expressed? When I moved the amendment on 6th March, it occupied 20 lines. As I calculate it, this group of amendments occupies 26½ pages of the Bill. I am sure that the amendments are much better than my amendment, but they are much longer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my welcome for the amendments by taking up the point
1098
made by my noble friend. We were assured outside the House that the complexity in all our regulations —I declare my interest as chairman of FIMBRA, one of the SROs —arose from the use of four words in Schedule 2 to the Financial Services Act. Those words were "at least equivalent to". My simple hope on Second Reading was that four other words might be found which had the meaning in law attributed to them in normal conversation by normal people so that we could get round that difficulty.
I should have liked to see four rows rather than about 20 lines. However, I believe that we have a means of simplification which is very welcome indeed to the industry. Exactly how simple the simplicity will be remains to be seen. As my noble friend will remember, at the appropriate stage of the Bill I said that the criteria should be simplicity and certainty: simplicity for clarity of application; and certainty for the avoidance of litigation.
My noble friend has pointed out that two of the SROs have embarked swiftly on the process of reviewing activities in the light of what is proposed here. The outcome of that appears to him to be minimal in terms of simplification. I make no comment on that because I am not familiar with their procedures. However, I regard it as supportive of my own association's approach which is to ascertain the maximum that can be done and the greatest security that it will work, before embarking on a change in the rule book. Thus what comes later may be more welcome than what comes earlier.
I also wish to say how glad I was to hear the Government's declaration of their intention not to implement the new Section 47B which has the odd effect of waiving statements of principle. It seems to me that a statement of principle ceases to be a statement of principle when it is waived. I am glad that the Government do not intend to introduce that paradox into our daily life earlier than necessary.
The other remarks which my noble friend made are more relevant to my own Amendments Nos. 305A and 305B. I shall not speak further except to say that any attempt at simplification is welcome. I hope that the Government and other authorities will give us all the assistance that they cart in making sure that the result is indeed simplification and not a change in complexity.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 295, I too wish to declare an interest in that I am an independent board member of the Securities Association, one of the five statutory self-regulatory organisations recognised under the Act. I should tell the House that I have consulted the association about the amendment. My remarks will reflect what I have been told.
This is a complex matter. It is important to distinguish between the wood and the trees. I suggest that in considering these amendments we must bear in mind the broad objectives of the regulatory regime which was set out in the Government's original White Paper in 1985. Very briefly, those objectives were as follows: the efficiency of the markets; their competitiveness; their flexibility in changing

1099
circumstances; and, most important, confidence of the investors in the regulation of the markets.
The stated intention of the original Act was to provide a statutory framework within which the SROs could operate flexibly. One of the main vehicles for achieving the Act's objective was the group of SROs such as the TSA. I suggest to the House that events since the Act was passed have justified the decision to rely on the SROs. They have experienced practitioners at their disposal who have been heavily involved in the formation of these organisations and their continued operation. They are best equipped to spot and to stop malpractice. They can react quickly to changing circumstances I can, I think, understand some of the reasons underlying the need for Amendment No. 295. The density of the rules introduced by the Securities and Investments Board may perhaps have come as something of a surprise to the authors of the Bill. The need to reinvent the principles can therefore be welcomed. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just suggested, it might have been wiser if that had been done at the outset.
However, my worry with the amendments as they stand is that they can be read as a move away from the concept of responsive practitioner-based regulation. For the new statements of principle and the core rules will be issued by the centre —that is, by the SIB. They will bind all investment businesses, whether they are members of the SRO or not.
I should emphasise that I can readily accept the basic notion of principles and core rules. Clear statements of principles to be followed by every investment business are highly desirable. That is a good way of setting standards. Uniformity of rules between the various SROs is also helpful to client and practitioner alike. However, I express a certain regret that the method chosen will mean direct application of these principles in core rules issued by the SIB. Many people involved in the SROs would have preferred a different route; namely, the introduction of these core rules into the rule books of each SRO. The individual investment business would then continue to see its own SRO as the single source of its regulation.
It may be pointed out from the Government Benches that the legal effect of either route is the same. I do not for a moment deny that. What I say is that it would have been better to follow a method which confirmed and strengthened the role of the SRO rather than running the risk of weakening it. As matters will stand under the present amendments, there seem to me to be certain dangers that the complexity of the system of regulation will be increased and that the authority and role of the SROs will be weakened. I feel bound to call attention to these disadvantages.
There are some other amendments which could be taken as having a further centralising effect. I refer in particular to the power of the SIB to designate certain core rules which will not be capable of waiver. The TSA was pleased to note the statement in another place that the power was intended as a
1100
reserve power, although that is not I think specifically stated in the amendment.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clear message today and that he will be able to reaffirm that the Government's intentions towards the SROs will not be changed; that it is not intended to dilute the role of the SROs in the clauses proposed to the House; and that the SROs are seen as continuing to have a key role in the system of regulation, especially in writing and enforcing their own rule books for their members.
Effective functioning of the SRO system requires a committed contribution by the practitioners themselves. If the amendments are to be taken as shifting responsibilities away from the SROs to the SIB, then that commitment may be reduced. That would be bad for effective regulation and bad for achieving the Government's objective. I invite the Minister to confirm that that is not the Government's intention.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships for the absence from these Benches today of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran who has made a very considerable contribution to your Lordships' debates. He is indisposed and in bed and I have stepped into the breach at very short notice. I do not pretend to have any detailed knowledge of company law.
With regard to these amendments, I understand that the securities associations welcome them as a way in which to overcome difficulties arising from the Financial Services Act. The amendments simplify the procedures. They will help to ensure that the regulatory structure does not become over-complex and unclear for both businesses and investors alike.
We on these Benches welcome the clarification now introduced by the amendments. It appears that investors should have increasing confidence in regulatory systems to enable them to operate flexibly in a very competitive financial market. I should add that I am putting forward the view of my noble friend on this matter. However, I must say that I agree with him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, at the risk of appearing rather as Banquo's ghost in this feast of celebration, perhaps I may take issue with the Government, noble Lords opposite, and indeed those to my left and right politically and geographically, on some points in these amendments. In general, we welcomed the financial services legislation when it came in. I remember spending long hours in your Lordships' House debating the minutiae of that legislation. The points that I made almost ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam, were that if financial services legislation is to work properly —I speak as a practitioner of more than 20 years in this business —it has to ensure that there are clear rules for the protection of investors at the same time as ensuring that the markets can operate satisfactorily underneath those rules.
The problem I had with the legislation when it was a Bill in 1986 was that it went into far too much

1101
detail as regards the system of legislation and the system of control, with the results that we all know. The operation of the legislation has generated an enormous amount of paper and rule books inches thick. That has been a major problem.
The Government embarked on a consultative process which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, described to your Lordships when we debated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in Committee. He said at the time that he was unable to bring forward the amendments which we had hoped to see in this House but that they would be produced in another place, as indeed they were. To a certain extent the amendments mark a move forward, but to a great degree they confuse the issue. The issue should be quite simple. I preferred the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in Committee to the speech he made today.
As I said, the issue should be quite simple. One has general statements of principle which people authorised to carry on investment business should pay attention to. One then has rules, the violation of which can give rise to disciplinary procedures and indeed civil action. One then has a code of guidance which states that, in general, the rules mean such and such. That code of guidance can be altered as circumstances require. That seems to me to be a perfectly clear tripartite system of operating financial services control.
However, when one starts, as the Government have started, to say that failure to comply with a general statement of principle is a ground for the taking of disciplinary action —in other words, operators can have their authorisation removed for failure to abide by a principle —one is then giving the principle the status of a rule. There will no doubt be a lot of litigation and the courts will argue about what the principle means. The whole point of a principle is that that kind of litigation on detail should not arise.
When the principle is then allowed to state, as it is in Amendment No. 295, that,
"the conduct … expected of persons authorised to carry on investment business … may include compliance with a code",
so that the principle states that one must comply with a code, the operation of the legislation becomes rather circular. I find this measure a curious half-way house. I would prefer to go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as he stated in Committee, and say that we should have principles, clearly enforced rules and guidance which illustrates how the rules should operate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords —
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as we are on Commons amendments, I hope I may continue. On the question of new Section 47B, the Government have said they do not intend to commence this new section. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has welcomed it. However, if the Government do not want new Section 47B —I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his view —why have it there in the first place? Why has new Section 47B been included in the legislation if the Government are not going to commence it now? Why have a reserve
1102
power? It is quite contrary to the statement of principle that it should be waived in any particular case. That does not make any sense to me.
I understand that the SROs will have great difficulty in rewriting their rule books. That is a matter on which they have spent a great deal of time, and one on which they will have to spend a great deal more time. I should like the noble Lord to address himself to my next question, which to a certain extent picks up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Will the SROs in practice survive? I do not wish to refer to these differences of opinion which have taken place in some SROs in the very recent past, but some SROs seem to be rather weaker than others. Indeed, there is a question as to whether one SRO may dissolve itself or possibly merge with another. I wonder whether the Government are firmly committed to the continuing central position of SROs in the whole structure of legislation.
We have spent a certain amount of time on these amendments. I have made the points I wish to make, but I should say a few words about the cost of compliance. I am afraid that investor protection does not come cheap. I very much hope that in accepting that SROs must take account of the cost of compliance with the rules, corners will not be cut so that we do not obtain proper invest or protection. The complaint about the financial services legislation in its present form is not only from operators who find it too complicated and expensive to operate but also from small investors who find that it does not give them the protection they want. That is a widespread complaint.
I hope that these amendments the Government have put forward will go some way to remove those two complaints. I think they are rather more biased towards the operators than towards the investors. As such, we do not oppose them, but we do not give them a particularly warm welcome. We believe they represent a half-way house and that the Government will have to move the whole way in the course of time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think it is right that I should again stress that the changes being made to the Financial Services Act in no way represent any reduction in the Government's commitment to the effective protection of investors. Rather, they represent experience accumulated over the first year of the Act's operation. This experience points to the benefits to be gained, by practitioners and investors alike, from a number of modifications to the way in which the very high standard of investor protection already achieved should be maintained.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, had to say about the role of the self-regulatory organisations. I hope I can reassure him by taking this opportunity to re-affirm what has been said in another place. Nothing in these changes should in any way be seen as a weakening of the Government's commitment to practitioner-based regulation and their recognition of the vital role of the SROs in that system. I hope that responds also to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

1103
I wish to refer to some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I hope that he will take some comfort from the provisions of Amendment No. 306, which will require the costs of compliance to be taken into account. That point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I can assure my noble friend that the Government wish those costs to be the minimum necessary to protect investors adequately. I can only add that it is up to members of SROs, as well as the SIB, to ensure that this objective is achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was concerned about breaches of principle and the possible disciplinary action that may follow. I am bound to say that I am a little curious as to how the noble Lord thinks principles should be enforced. Is he proposing that a firm that breaches the principle on, for example, due care and diligence should be immune from discipline? I am sure that that is not the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Elton were concerned about the position of new Section 47B. As I explained earlier, we do not propose to commence this new section in the first instance. I think it is important to realise that the power to issue statements of principle is not in any way limited in the number or type of principles selected. While I believe it is right that there should be no question of a waiver from the kinds of principles which the SIB is now proposing, the legislation provides sufficient flexibility that the SIB could choose to use this power more widely at some point in the future. At that time it might become appropriate for certain principles to be the subject of waivers and the Government could take action accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the question of adequacy representing possibly lower protection than equivalent. As my noble friend recognised at the Second Reading of the Bill, the presence of the word "equivalent" in the Financial Services Act has been widely interpreted as requiring a close textual comparison of different sets of rules rather than a comparison of their effects. The amendment now being made breaks that textual link, so ensuring that the recognised bodies are free to draw up detailed rules as appropriate for their membership. There is no reason to suppose that the overall standard of investor protection will decline as a result of the change.
Throughout the course of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has had to decide whether he was speaking from his great experience in these matters or as a member of the Labour Party speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that the noble Lord has had difficulty on occasions in reconciling those two different responsibilities. On this occasion he has attempted to sit on the fence between the two —with some difficulty, if he will forgive me for saying so. The fact of the matter is that the proposals now before your Lordships have the widespread approval of the practitioners, at least; and I hope that now they will have the approval of the Labour Party as well.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he recognise that the points that I made were made by my honourable friend Mr. John Garrett in another place?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
296 Clause 158, page 152, line 41, leave out from 'body),' to end of line 42 and insert after "paragraphs 2 to 25" insert "(except paragraph 22A)".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 296. It is purely technical and deals with a drafting problem.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment, —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
297 After Clause 158, insert the following new Clauses —
'Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations.
. In Chapter V of Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (conduct of investment business), after section 63 insert —
"Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations.
63A. —(1) The Secretary of State may in rules and regulations under —

(a) section 48 (conduct of business rules),

(b) section 49 (financial resources rules),

(c) section 55 (clients' money regulations), or

(d) section 56 (regulations as to unsolicited calls),

designate provisions which apply, to such extent as may be specified, to a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the organisation.
(2) It may be provided that the designated rules or regulations have effect, generally or to such extent as may be specified, subject to the rules of the organisation.
(3) A member of a recognised self-regulating organisation who contravenes a rule or regulation applying to him by virtue of this section shall be treated as having contravened the rules of the organisation.
(4) It may be provided that, to such extent as may be specified, the designated rules or regulations may not be modified or waived (under section 63B below or section 50) in relation to a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation.
Where such provision is made any modification or waiver previously granted shall cease to have effect, subject to any transitional provision or saving contained in the rules or regulations.
(5) Except as mentioned in subsection (1), the rules and regulations referred to in that subsection do not apply to a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the organisation.
Modification or waiver of designated rules and regulations
63B. —(1) A recognised self-regulating organisation may on the application of a member of the organisation —

(a) modify a rule or regulation designated under section 63A so as to adapt it to his circumstances or to any particular kind of business carried on by him, or

1105

(b) dispense him from compliance with any such rule or regulation, generally or in relation to any particular kind of business carried on by him.

(2) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised unless it appears to the organisation —

(a) that compliance with the rule or regulation in question would be unduly burdensome for the applicant having regard to the benefit which compliance would confer on investors, and

(b) that the exercise of those powers will not result in any undue risk to investors.

(3) The powers conferred by this section may be exercised unconditionally or subject to conditions; and section 63A(3) applies in the case of a contravention of a condition as in the case of contravention of a designated rule or regulation.
(4) The reference in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisations) to monitoring and enforcement of compliance with rules and regulations includes monitoring and enforcement of compliance with conditions imposed by the organisation under this section.".
298 Insert the following new Clause—
Codes of practice
. In Chapter V of Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (conduct of investment business), after the sections inserted by section (Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations) above, insert —
"Codes of practice
63C. —(1) The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice with respect to any matters dealt with by statements of principle issued under section 47A or by rules or regulations made under any provision of this Chapter.
(2) In determining whether a person has failed to comply with a statement of principle —

(a) a failure by him to comply with any relevant provision of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish failure to comply with the statement of a principle, and

(b) compliance by him with the relevant provisions of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative any such failure.

(3) A contravention of a code of practice with respect to a matter dealt with by rules or regulations shall not of itself give rise to any liability or invalidate any transaction; but in determining whether a person's conduct amounts to contravention of a rule or regulation —

(a) contravention by him of any relevant provision of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish liability, and

(b) compliance by him with the relevant provisions of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

(4) Where by virtue of section 63A (application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations) rules or regulations —

(a) do not apply, to any extent, to a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation, or

(b) apply to any extent, subject to the rules of the organisation,

a code of practice with respect to a matter dealt with by the rules or regulations may contain provision limiting its application to a corresponding extent.".
299 Insert the following new Clause—
Relations with other regulatory authorities.
. In Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (regulation of investment business), after section 128 insert —

RELATIONS WITH OTHER REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Relevance of other controls
128A. In determining —

(a) in relation to a self-regulating organisation, whether the requirements of Schedule 2 are met, or

(b) in relation to a professional body, whether the requirements of Schedule 3 are met,

the Secretary of State shall take into account the effect of any other controls to which members of the organisation or body are subject.
Relevance of information given and action taken by other regulatory authorities.
128B. —(1) The following provisions apply in the case of —

(a) a person whose principal place of business is in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) a person whose principal business is other than investment business;

and in relation to such person "the relevant regulatory authority" means the appropriate regulatory authority in that country or territory or, as the case may be, in relation to his principal business.
(2) The Secretary of State may regard himself as satisfied with respect to any matter relevant for the purposes of this Part if —

(a) the relevant regulatory authority informs him that it is satisfied with respect to that matter, and

(b) he is satisfied as to the nature and scope of the supervision exercised by that authority.

(3) In making any decision with respect to the exercise of his powers under this Part in relation to any such person, the Secretary of State may take in to account whether the relevant regulatory authority has exercised, or proposes to exercise, its powers in relation to that person.
(4) The Secretary of State may enter into such arrangements with other regulatory authorities as he thinks fit for the purposes of this section.
(5) Where any functions under this Part have been transferred to a designated agency, nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the discharge of Community obligations or other international obligations of the United Kingdom.
Enforcement in support of overseas regulatory authority.
128C.—(1) The Secretary of State may exercise his disciplinary powers or powers of intervention at the request of, or for the purpose of assisting, an overseas regulatory authority.
(2) The disciplinary powers of the Secretary of State means his powers —

(a) to withdraw or suspend authorisation under section 28 or to terminate or suspend authorisation under section 33,

(b) to give a disqualification direction under section 59,

(c) to make a public statement under section 60, or

(d) to apply for an injunction, interdict or other order under section 61(1);

and the reference to his powers of intervention is to the powers conferred by Chapter VI of this Part.
(3) An "overseas regulatory authority" means an authority in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which exercises —

(a) any function corresponding to —

(i) a function of the Secretary of State under this Act, the Insurance Companies. Act 1982 or the Companies Act 1985,

(ii) a function under this Act of a designated agency, transferee body or competent authority, or

(iii) a function of the Bank of England under the Banking Act 1987, or

1107

(b) any functions in connection with the investigation of, or the enforcement of rules (whether or not having the force of law) relating to, conduct of the kind prohibited by the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985, or

(c) any function prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, being a function which in the opinion of the Secretary of State relates to companies or financial services.

(4) In deciding whether to exercise those powers the Secretary of State may take into account, in particular —

(a) whether corresponding assistance would be given in that country or territory to an authority exercising regulatory functions in the United Kingdom;

(b) whether the case concerns the breach of a law, or other requirement, which has no close parallel in the United Kingdom or involves the assertion of a jurisdiction not recognised by the United Kingdom;

(c) the seriousness of the case and its importance to persons in the United Kingdom;

(d) whether it is otherwise appropriate in the public interest to give the assistance sought.

(5) The Secretary of State may decline to exercise those powers unless the overseas regulatory authority undertakes to make such contribution towards the cost of their exercise as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The reference in subsection (3)(c) to financial services includes, in particular, investment business, insurance and banking.".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 297 to 299 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
300 After Clause 158, insert the following new Clause—
Construction of references to incurring civil liability
(1) In section 150(6) of the Financial Services Act 1986 (exclusion of liability in repect of false or misleading listing particulars), at the end insert —
"The reference above to a person incurring liability includes a reference to any other person being entitled as against that person to be granted any civil remedy or to rescind or repudiate any agreement.".
(2) In section 154(5) of the Financial Services Act 1986 (exclusion of civil liability in respect of advertisements or other information in connection with listing application), at the end insert —
"The reference above to a person incurring civil liability includes a reference to any other person being entitled as against that person to be granted any civil remedy or to rescind or repudiate any agreement.".
301 Insert the following new Clause —
'Offers of unlisted securities
(1) In Part V of the Financial Services Act 1986 (offers of unlisted securities), after section 160 insert —
"Exemptions
160A. —(1) The Secretary of State may by order exempt from sections 159 and 160 when issued in such circumstances as may be specified in the order —

(a) advertisements appearing to him to have a private character, whether by reason of a connection between the person issuing them and those to whom they are addressed or otherwise;

(b) advertisements appearing to him to deal with investments only incidentally;

1108

(c) advertisements issued to persons appearing to him to be sufficiently expert to understand any risks involved;

(d) such other classes of advertisements as he thinks fit.

(2) The Secretary of State may be order exempt from sections 159 and 160 an advertisement issued in whatever circumstances which relates to securities appearing to him to be of a kind that can be expected normally to be bought or dealt in only by persons sufficiently expert to understand any risks involved.
(3) An order under subsection (1) or (2) may require a person who by virtue of the order is authorised to issue an advertisement to comply with such requirements as are specified in the order.
(4) An order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) or subsection (2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and no order shall be made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".
(2) The following amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986 are consequential on that above.
(3) In section 159, in subsection (1) omit the words from the beginning to "section 161 below," and after subsection (2) insert —
"(3) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to section 160A (exemptions) and section 161 (exceptions).".
(4) In section 160, in subsection (1) omit the words from the beginning to "section 161 below," and for subsections (6) to (9) substitute —
"(6) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to section 160A (exemptions) and section 161 (exceptions).".
(5) In section 171, in subsection (1)(b) and subsection (3) for "section-160(6) or (7)" substitute "section 160A".'
302 Insert the following new Clause —
'Offers of securities by private companies and old public companies
In Part V of the Financial Services Act 1986 (offers of unlisted securities), in section 170 (advertisements by private companies and old public companies), for subsections (2) to (4) substitute —
"(2) The Secretary of State may by order exempt from subsection (1) when issued in such circumstances as may be specified in the order —

(a) advertisements appearing to him to have a private character, whether by reason of a connection between the person issuing them and those to whom they are addressed or otherwise;

(b) advertisements appearing to him to deal with investments only incidentally;

(c) advertisements issued to persons appearing to him to be sufficiently expert to understand any risks involved;

(d) such other classes of advertisements as he thinks fit.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order exempt from subsection (I) an advertisement issued in whatever circumstances which relates to securities appearing to him to be of a kind that can be expected normally to be bought or dealt in only by persons sufficiently expert to understand any risks involved.
(4) An order under subsection (2) or (3) may require a person who by virtue of the order is authorised to issue an advertisement to comply with such requirements as are specified in the order.
(4A) An order made by virtue of subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) or subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and no order shall be made by virtue of subsection (2Xd) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 300 and 302 en bloc. With permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 304.
The amendments bring together four clauses which deal with certain changes to the Financial Services Act relating to listing particulars and prospectuses.
Amendment No. 300 amends Section 150 of the Financial Services Act. That section provides inter alia that those responsible for listing particulars are liable to pay compensation to anyone suffering a loss as a result of the omission from the particulars of information which should have been included or of the failure to disclose significant changes occurring from publication of the listing particulars and the commencement of dealings.
Section 150(6) makes it clear that no liability arises if the person responsible for the particulars was either not required to disclose the information in question or was entitled to omit it by virtue of Section 148.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a little taken aback. Is the noble Lord going to say something about Amemdment No. 304?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not mention Amendment No. 304. The amendment gives effect to a decision announced in the Budget to unify the separate regulatory regimes for sterling commercial paper—currently less than one year maturity — and short-term corporate bonds — one to five years' maturity— as part of a package of measures further to deregulate the sterling capital market. The securities concerned have a minimum denomination of £100,000 and are aimed at professional investors. I hope that that clears the matter up. I apologise for not having said that in my opening remarks.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I raised the question because while the other amendments which he moved seem unexceptionable, Amendment No. 304 requires a moment's reflection, particularly as it was not debated in Committee in the other place.
I am aware that the Minister's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned in his Budget Speech that he would move in that direction. Since it is rather drastic to substitute five years for one year in order to unify what the Chancellor called the short-term corporate bond and sterling commercial paper markets, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, since the Budget have there been any further studies of the subject, either by the Treasury, the Bank of England or his Lordship's own department? Secondly, and more importantly, since it is a significant move —although not necessarily an erroneous move —will the relevant government departments be keeping a close eye on
1110
what happens with a view to seeing that nothing goes wrong?
For myself, I should go a long way to avoid being involved in a five-year debenture. If the market has any sense, I assume that it will take the same view. However, setting that point on one side, it is not a trivial matter and is one which we cannot allow to go by. I therefore should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the Government will look at this as carefully as possible as the market evolves to ensure appropriate protection.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course it is not a trivial matter. Although no studies are currently being carried out, the Government do not legislate on such matters without keeping an eye on developments. We shall make sure that the market develops in the way that we should like.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
303 After Clause 158, insert the following new Clause —
'Jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Session.
. —(1) In the Financial Services Act 1986, for section 188 (jurisdiction as respects actions concerning designated agency, amp;c.), substitute —
"Jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Session.
188. —(1) Proceedings arising out of any act or omission (or proposed act or omission) of —

(a) a recognised self-regulating organisation,

(b) a designated agency,

(c) a transferee body, or

(d) the competent authority,

in the discharge or purported discharge of any of its functions under this Act may be brought in the High Court or the Court of Session.
(2) The jurisdiction conferred by subsection (1) is in addition to any other jurisdiction exercisable by those courts.".
(2) In Schedule 5 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (proceedings excluded from general provisions as to allocation of jurisdiction within the United Kingdom), for paragraph 10 substitute —
"Financial Services Act 1986
10. Proceedings such as are mentioned in section 188 of the Financial Services Act 1986.".'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 303.
The amendment makes it clear that proceedings can be taken against a recognised self-regulating organisation in any part of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether it has a presence there. Section 188 of the Financial Services Act already makes this clear as regards the position of SIB or of the International Stock Exchange in its capacity as the competent authority under Part IV of the Act.
Unlike those bodies, the SRO's powers depend on contract with their members, not statute. Nevertheless, it seems clear that they can to a certain extent be regarded as performing a function analogous to that of a public authority. Having considered representations on this point, we have therefore decided that it is more appropriate to apply Section 188 to SROs than to regard them simply as commercial organisations for jurisdictional

1111
purposes. That is the effect of the revised Section 188.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
304 After Clause 159, insert the following new clause —
'Offers of short-dated debentures.
. In section 195 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (circumstances in which certain offers of debentures not treated as offers to the public), for "repaid within less than one year of the date of issue" substitute "repaid within five years of the date of issue".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 304.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
305 After Clause 159, insert the following new clause —
'Standard of protection for investors.
. —(1) In Schedule 2 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisations), in paragraph 3 (safeguards for investors) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute —
"(1) The organisation must have rules governing the carrying on of investment business by its members which, together with the statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice to which its members are subject under Chapter V of Part I of this Act, are such as to afford an adequate level of protection for investors.
(2) In determining in any case whether an adequate level of protection is afforded for investors of any description, regard shall be had to the nature of the investment business carried on by members of the organisation, the kinds of investors involved and the effectiveness of the organisation's arrangements for enforcing compliance.".
(2) In Schedule 3 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (requirements for recognition of professional bodies), for paragraph 3 (safeguards for investors) substitute —
"3. —(1) The body must have rules regulating the carrying on of investment business by persons certified by it which, together with the statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice to which those persons are subject under Chapter V of Part I of this Act, afford an adequate level of protection for investors.
(2) In determining in any case whether an adequate level of protection is afforded for investors of and description, regard shall be had to the nature of the investment business carried on by persons certified by the body, the kinds of investors involved and the effectiveness of the body's arrangements for enforcing compliance.".
(3) The order bringing this section into force may provide that, for a transitional period, a self-regulating organisation or professional body may elect whether to comply with the new requirement having effect by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above or with the requirement which it replaces.
The Secretary of State may by order specify when the transitional period is to end.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 305.
I shall move the amendment formally and reply in more detail after those moving the amendments to Amendment No. 305 have had their say.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne).

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 305
305A Subsection (2), in the inserted paragraph 3(2), line 3, after ("had") insert (" —(a)").
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 305A. In debate on Amendment No. 295 questions of complexity were raised and also questions of costs.
Your Lordships will be under no illusion that the Financial Services Act is intensely resented by many to whom it is applied, both on grounds of complexity and on grounds of cost. I say to whom it is applied. In the context of self-regulation that may sound like a paradox. There is a paradox at the centre of the Act. Practitioners are responsible for applying the Act under supervision to themselves. Self-regulation is therefore conducted within strict limits laid down by Parliament and interpreted and applied by the Securities and Investments Board. Beyond those limits the "self disappears from regulation and the regulators are seen as the hostile engines of enforcement. In that atmosphere, there is a close interest among practitioners in fairness and equality of treatment between different sectors.
That brings me to Amendments Nos. 305A and 305B. Such a concern with fairness would be understandable and proper in any circumstances. Resentment sharpens the interest. Not only the practitioner but also the investor has a close interest in equality between the different sectors of which he may become a client, as whatever level of supervision is applied will be reflected precisely in the level of protection afforded to him.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 305A and 305B is to secure equality of protection between two sectors —that of the recognised professional bodies, and that of the self-regulating organisations. Amendment No. 305, which they seek to amend, first appeared in another place and the general idea of a hierarchy of principles or core of designated rules was soon understood. It was understood to be equally applicable to all. In Standing Committee it was discovered at short notice that core rules could be designated on SROs but not on recognised professional bodies. When an attempt was made in another place to secure designation of core rules on both sectors some acrimony resulted from comparisons of the compliance standards in the two sectors. But another place decided to continue with the arrangement that we now have.
In establishing that arrangement, the Government declared their expectation of the result —that there would be equality between the sectors —but not in terms of an undertaking. Since their powers were delegated to the Securities and Investments Board,

1113
it might be thought that the undertaking or the intention was being expressed from the wrong quarter. I was therefore glad to hear my noble friend use words in regard to the earlier group of amendments which suggest that the intention that there should be absolute equality of treatment between the two sectors is one maintained by the Securities and Investments Board and one which the Government will support, and if necessary intervene on.
I think that I have said sufficient to explain that the effects of the amendment would be to require anyone deciding whether the provisions of the two sectors had an equal effect to consider in particular the adequacy of that effect in each case. The effect of my noble friend's words might be the same and, if it is, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, obviously, I shall speak to Amendment No. 305 and the amendments to it. I do not want to go over again the ground of Amendment No. 295, of which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded us, save to say that the Financial Services Act was regarded —and, certainly in my experience, is still regarded —as hostile by many people in the financial markets.
Essentially, one may approach the subject in one of two ways. One may assume that a self-regulatory body will self-regulate correctly, but occasionally the whip needs to be cracked. In other words, one may assume that we are dealing with honest men or one may assume that they cannot be relied upon to self-regulate and one devises the whole system on the assumption that one is dealing with dishonest people. It seems to me that much of the experience has been by the latter approach which is why so many practitioners find the Government's approach rather hostile. As I understand it, the Government are now, in my view, quite rightly, anxious to be less hostile. I am extremely sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said; but, having said that, I do not want to go over the ground again. However, I agree with him that cost is not a trivial matter.
On Amendment No. 305, which relates to standards of protection, I should welcome a clarification of two matters. First, subsection (3) of the clause contains certain remarks about transitional periods. In determining which of the two parts of the clause will be operational, I should like to hear any further comments from the Minister about transitional periods. I should also like some clarification of the wording as some of it may mean everything and nothing. Essentially, subsection (2) of the new clause concerns the provision of an adequate level of protection. It states:
"regard shall be had to the nature of the investment business carried on by members of the organisation, the kinds of investors involved and the effectiveness of the organisation's arrangements for enforcing compliance".
If we start from the proposition that things should be equal, the clause seems to give all kinds of grounds as to why they should be unequal. I should like a statement on equality, as I believe would practitioners.
1114
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right to say that equality is required here. It is required on the grounds of competition. Many of the relevant bodies compete with each other, at least at the margin, and they want to believe —certainly those who have been in touch with me over the past year want to believe this —that they are competing according to the same rules of the game. Having said that, I noted that the noble Lord used the words "absolute equality" at one stage. I am not clear whether the word "absolute" adds anything to "equality". The reason I take him up on that point is that I assume that equality is not the same as identity —it is certainly not the same mathematically —and it cannot be the same here. People want to be treated equally bearing in mind their circumstances; in other words, they do not want to be treated identically.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I eschewed the word "absolute" on almost every occasion. I apologise if I used the word on that occasion. There must be flexibility.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that enables me to proceed rapidly to the conclusion that I wished to reach; namely, that because, on the one hand, we do not want to over-regulate and because, on the other, there are so many different bodies involved, but, over all, because of the desire for fairness within the bounds of competition, I am persuaded that the noble Lord's amendments are, to say the least, worth taking seriously. They add something useful to the Bill. I should like either to believe that they are acceptable to the Government or —I am always open-minded —to hear the Government explain why they are already in the Bill. That is normally the Government's favourite answer to this kind of amendment. Either way however the operators in the City require at least some modicum of reassurance and certainly a less threatening approach to the subject of regulation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no hesitation in reassuring my noble friend about his anxieties regarding the equivalency of protection between regulators. The Government have every confidence that the SIB will make use of the revised test of recognition to ensure that high, consistent standards of investor protection are provided by both the SROs and the RPBs, as the board has indicated that it will do. However, if it became apparent that the system was not operating in the way intended, the Government would consider what steps might be appropriate to remedy the situation. I hope that that gives my noble friend the reassurance that he seeks.
Perhaps I may turn again to the question of adequacy and/or equivalence which we touched on in regard to the earlier amendment. The presence of the word "equivalent" in the Financial Services Act has been widely interpreted as requiring a close textual comparison of different sets of rules rather than the comparison of their effects. The amendment breaks that link, so ensuring that the recognised bodies are free to draw up detailed rules as appropriate for their particular membership. There is no reason to suppose that the overall standard of

1115
investor protection will decline as a result of the change.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me especially about the transitional period. The answer is that it will be up to the SROs themselves. The Government are ready to bring the new test into operation when requested, which presumably would be at the end of the transitional period that the SROs set for themselves.
I hope that in the light of those considerations and the assurances that I have given my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendments and that in a moment your Lordships will be able to agree to the amendment proposed by the other place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The words that he has given to us on these amendments, when taken with the words he gave us on Amendment No. 295, amount to exactly the reassurance which I believe many practitioners require. Before I sit down again, I return to the question of absolutism raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I think that there needs to be perceived equivalence for purposes of fairness. I was anxious not to include in the use of the word "absolute" the suggestion that the wording in every case should be exactly the same, because it may not be appropriate—although I believe that in many cases it would be appropriate —for recognised professional bodies to adopt the designated rules without the need for designation. That would be very welcome and further reassuring. I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 305A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 305, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 305B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 305 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
306 After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause —
'Cost of compliance.
'. —(1) In Schedule 2 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisations), after paragraph 3 insert —
"Taking account of costs of compliance
3A. The organisation must have satisfactory arrangements for taking account, in framing its rules, of the cost to those to whom the rules would apply of complying with those rules and any other controls to which they are subject.";
and in Schedule 3 to that Act (requirements for recognition of professional body), after paragraph 3 insert —
"Taking account of costs of compliance
3A. The body must have satisfactory arrangements for taking account, in framing its rules, of the cost to those to whom the rules would apply of complying with those rules and any other controls to which they are subject.";
(2) The additional requirements having effect by virtue of subsection (1) do not affect the status of a self-regulating organisation or professional body recognised before the commencement of that subsection; but if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that any of those requirements is not met in the case of such an organisation or body, he shall within one month of commencement give notice to the organisation or body stating his opinion.
(3) Where the Secretary of State gives such a notice, he shall not —

(a) take action to revoke the recognition of such an organisation or body on the ground that any of the additional requirements is not met, unless he considers it essential to do so in the interests of investors, or

(b) apply on any such ground for a compliance order under section 12 of the Financial Services Act 1986,

until after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the notice was given.
(4) In Schedule 7 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (qualifications of designated agency), after paragraph 2 insert —
"Taking account of costs of compliance
2A. —(1) The agency must have satisfactory arrangements for taking account, in framing any provisions which it proposes to make in the exercise of its legislative functions, of the cost to those to whom the provisions would apply of complying with those provisions and any other controls to which they are subject.
(2) In this paragraph 'legislative functions' means the functions of issuing or making statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice.".
(5) The additional requirement having effect by virtue of subsection (4) above does not affect the status of a designated agency to which functions have been transferred before the commencement of that subsection; but if the Secretary of State is of the opinion the requirement is not met in the case of such an agency, he shall within one month of commencement give notice to the agency, stating his opinion.
(6) Where the Secretary of State gives such a notice, he shall not take action under section 115(2) of the Financial Services Act 1986 to resume any functions exercisable by such an agency on the ground that the additional requirement is not met, until after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the notice was given.
(7) References in this section to a recognised self-regulating organisation include a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies and references to a designated agency include a transferee body (within the meaning of that Act).
In relation to such an organisation or body —

(a) reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as references to the Registrar (within the meaning of Schedule 11 to the Financial Services Act 1986), and

(b) the reference to section 12 of that Act shall be construed as a reference to paragraph 6 of that Schedule.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 306.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
307 Clause 160, page 153, line 39, leave out from 'paragraph' to 'insert' in line 40 and insert '5'.
308 Page 153, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert —
'Supplementary
6. —(1) The provisions of this Schedule relate to an exchange only so far as it provides facilities for the carrying on of investment business; and nothing in this Schedule shall be construed as requiring an exchange to limit dealings on the exchange to dealings in investments.'.
309 Page 153, line 44, leave out 'paragraph 2(4) above' and insert 'this Schedule'.
310 Page 153, line 47, after 'procedures', insert '(including default procedures)'.
311 Page 153, line 48, leave out from 'exchange' to end of line 2 on page 154.
312 Page 154, line 3, at end insert—
'(3) In section 207(1) of the Financial Services Act 1986 (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert —
" 'ensure' and 'ensuring', in relation to the performance of transactions on an investment exchange, have the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to this Act;".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 307. In moving this Motion I shall also move, with permission, agreement to Amendments Nos. 308 to 312 inclusive.
These various amendments to Clause 160 clarify two points of uncertainty which have been identified in this provision. The first occurs in what had previously been intended to be sub-paragraph 2A(1) of Schedule 4 to the Financial Services Act. That provision had been introduced to make it clear that the requirement in the Schedule 4 recognition criteria that an exchange should restrict dealing to investments in which there was a proper market should not mean that the exchange could not permit dealings in things other than investments (for instance physical commodities as opposed to futures, since only the latter are investments within the meaning of the Act). However, that in turn begs the question of whether the requirements of Schedule 4 should apply to these non-investments. Our view is that they should not —the Financial Services Act is only concerned with investments.
Amendment No. 308 puts that point beyond doubt while at the same time tidying up the position of this provision in Schedule 4. Amendments Nos. 307 and 309 are consequential on that tidying up.
The second point of uncertainty was highlighted in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to hear my words. He suggested that, as it stands, new paragraph 2A(2)(b) can be read as requiring a recognised exchange to have procedures to deal with all the possible consequences of a default and that this was an impossible requirement. As it was pointed out in offering to consider this point, there may be circumstances where we would want an exchange to concern itself with the consequences of so-called back-to-back transactions whereby the deal between the exchange member and the ordinary investor is not strictly speaking "on exchange". However, having considered the matter further we concluded that the wording of paragraph 2A(2)(b) was not ideal and that the question of back-to-back contracts was more appropriately dealt with in the context of Part VII itself. Amendment No. 311 therefore removes this sub-paragraph.
Amendment No. 310 is consequential to ensure that an exchange's procedures for settlement of on-exchange transactions include default procedures. Amendment No. 312 introduces a cross-reference to the new definitions inserted by
1118
this clause into the relevant definitions section in the Financial Services Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
313 After Clause 160 insert the following new Clause —
'Consequential amendments and delegation of functions on commencement.
'. —(1) The Financial Services Act 1936 has effect with the amendments specified in Schedule (Consequential amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986) which are consequential on the amendments made by sections (Statements of principle), (Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations) and (Codes of practice).
(2) If immediately before the commencement of any provision of Part (sections (Statements of principle), 158, (Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self regulating organisations), (Codes of practice), (Regulations with other regulatory authorities), (Construction of references to incurring civil liability), (Offers of unlisted securities), (Offers of securities by private companies and old public companies), (Jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session), 159, (Offers of short-dated debentures), (Standard of protection for investors), (Costs of compliance), 160 and (Consequential amendments and delegation of functions on commencement)) which amends Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 —

(a) a designated agency is exercising by virtue of a delegation order under section 114 of that Act any functions of the Secretary of State under that Part, and

(b) no draft order is lying before Parliament resuming any of those functions,

the order bringing that provision into force may make, in relation to any functions conferred on the Secretary of State by the amendment, any such provision as may be made by an order under that section.
(3) If immediately before the commencement of any provision of Schedule (Consequential amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986) which amends Part III of the Financial Services Act 1986 —

(a) a transferee body (within the meaning of that Act) is exercising by virtue of a transfer order under paragraph 28 of Schedule 11 to that Act any functions of the Registrar under that Part, and

(b) no draft order is lying before Parliament resuming any of those functions,

the order bringing that provision into force may make, in relation to any functions conferred on the Registrar by the amendment, any such provision as may be made by an order under that paragraph.
(4) References in the Financial Services Act 1986 to a delegation order made under section 114 of that Act or to a transfer order made under paragraph 28 of Schedule 11 to that Act include an order made containing any such provision as is authorised by subsection (2) or (3).'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 313.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
314 After Clause 160, under the heading 'Transfer of securities' insert the following new Clause —
'Transfer of securities
. —(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for enabling title to securities to be evidenced and transferred without written instrument.
In this section —

(a) "securities" means shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock, loan stock, bonds, units of a collective investment scheme within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986 and other securities of any description;

(b) references to title to securities include any legal or equitable interest in securities; and

(c) references to a transfer of title include a transfer by way of security.

(2) The regulations may make provision —

(a) for procedures for recording and transferring title to securities, and

(b) for the regulation of those procedures and the persons responsible for or involved in their operation.

(3) The regulations shall contain such safeguards as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate for the protection of investors and for ensuring that competition is not restricted, distorted or prevented.
(4) The regulations may for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the operation of the new procedures make provision with respect to the rights and obligations of persons in relation to securities dealt with under the procedures.
But the regulations shall be framed so as to secure that the rights and obligations in relation to securities dealt with under the new procedures correspond, so far as practicable, with those which would arise apart from any regulations under this section.
(5) The regulations may include such supplementary, incidental and traditional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
In particular, provision may be made for the purpose of giving effect to —

(a) the transmission of title to securities by operation of law;

(b) any restriction on the transfer of title to securities arising by virtue of the provisions of any enactment or instrument, court order or agreement;

(c) any power conferred by any such provision on a person to deal with securities on behalf of the person entitled.

(6) The regulations may make provision with respect to the persons responsible for the operation of the new procedures —

(a) as to the consequences of their involvency or incapacity, or

(b) as to the transfer from them to other persons of their functions in relation to the new procedures.

(7) The regulations may for the purposes mentioned above —

(a) modify or exclude any provision of any enactment or instrument, or any rule of law;

(b) apply, with such modifications as may be appropriate, the provisions of any enactment or instrument (including provisions creating criminal offences);

(c) require the payment of fees, or enable persons to require the payment of fees, of such amounts as may be specified in the regulations or determined in accordance with them;

(d) empower the Secretary of State to delegate to any person willing and able to discharge them any functions of his under the regulations.

(8) The regulations may make different provision for different cases.
(9) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 314. In moving this Motion, at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 528. These amendments are designed to make possible new methods of holding and transferring shares and other securities without the need for paper certificates or transfer forms.
Under present company law, share certificates must be provided by each company's registrar to shareholders as evidence of their title to shares and a company may not register a transfer of shares or debentures unless a completed stock transfer form is produced to it. The movement of certificates and transfer forms necessary during transactions is a significant obstacle to UK equity market efficiency. Though this can be partially overcome by trading instead in equitable interests in shares held in bulk by a nominee, that entails a further series of problems since investors do not acquire rights of company membership as they would if they held legal title to the underlying securities.
The difficulty mentioned above can be overcome only by detailed changes to company law and other enactments. The amendment provides order-making powers, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. These powers may be used to make the necessary changes to legislation, but only for the purposes specified.
I think that it would be useful for me to explain exactly what these regulations could be used for. Broadly, their purposes are: first to dispense with the need for paper certificates and transfer forms; in that connection, secondly, to make any necessary provision as to the rights and obligations of any persons; finally, to provide for appropriate regulation of paperless shareholding schemes.
In so far as the changes affect the rights and obligations of investors, companies or the general public, their rights and obligations in respect of paperless securities must be broadly equivalent to those they possess in respect of certificated holdings.
It is expected that the powers will be used to make provision for the international stock exchange's Taurus scheme. The enabling power created by the amendment gives flexibility, within its delineated purposes, to take account of further development of that scheme and also, if desired, to make provision for competing schemes not necessarily operating in the same way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his exposition of this extremely important topic. We wish equity markets to operate as effectively as possible. We want them to be as up-to-date as possible. Certainly we want the international stock

1121
exchange to be able to use the very latest technology. Whatever our other disagreements, we all agree that this particular financial activity is of great benefit to our country and we hope that in future it will be of even more benefit. We cannot possibly allow an old-fashioned view, as it were, to hold back the kind of developments that we want.
Of course one does not want to delay this matter, especially, as the noble Lord reminded us, as the relevant order-making power will be by the affirmative route and therefore when the time comes this House will be able to express further opinions on the matter.
I should like to mention two or three matters at this point. They are mostly but not entirely to do with the small investor. Clearly what is called "dematerialisation" (which sounds like something out of the latest horror movie) can be of concern to the small investor —and when I say "concern" I mean psychological concern. At least if investors have a share certificate it looks as if they have something. If there is simply an entry, particularly on a computer, it worries them, even though in theory hard copy is available in the systems.
I hope that when this provision moves forward some account will be taken not merely of the needs of the small investor in an ordinary financial sense but also of the small investor's psychological needs in this area. In that sense I was reassured by the noble Lord when he said that there would be no loss of rights and equally no loss of obligations resulting from a move in that direction. However, when this goes forward I believe that there will be considerable requirement to let people know what will be happening.
I should like to remind the Minister that questions were raised in the other place concerning the construction of a firm's share register, and about security in connection with not letting it be public knowledge when a firm was scrutinising its register. It is fundamental to the operation of a mixed economy that a firm and any kind of investor is entitled to know who owns a particular commercial enterprise.
When we look at these matters in more detail we shall be pressing the points made in the other place concerning rights to know and, equally, rights to a modicum of secrecy with regard to trying to search the appropriate register, because there could be market sensitive information. Our main response to this matter is that we wish these kinds of development to go forward. I hope that nothing we say will be interpreted to mean otherwise.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been very wise in accepting the principle of these amendments. He mentioned the psychological feelings of small shareholders. It is particularly nice to see members of the Labour Party approving of small shareholders.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my position was not to approve or disapprove of small shareholders. I have a general interest in the problems of psychiatric medicine and that is why I intervened in that way.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that clarification was extremely useful. The Government are very keen that small shareholders do not feel in any way deprived. We are not making a fundamental change as to the rights of ownership; it is simply the point with regard to dematerialisation that the noble Lord spoke about.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
315 Clause 161, leave out Clause 161.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
315A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 315.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when the Bill left this House it contained Clause 161, entitled in the rubric "Set-off in bankruptcy". This clause was put into the Bill as a result of a number of months if not years of discussion between officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and members of the insolvency profession —both lawyers and accountants—who were worried about the impact of Section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
That section had tried to restate Section 31 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914, but in changing the language it raised a number of problems which, in the view of the insolvency practitioners, were material. There was, is and should be a right of set-off between credits and debits when the liquidation is in process and a creditor is conducting business with the bankrupt organisation. That may appear to be a relatively simple matter, but it becomes complicated when the language of the 1914 Act, which talks about the concept of debts being due, is confused with the language of the 1986 Act, which is somewhat different. The interpretation of what is a debt and when it becomes due has been the object of considerable argument.
This point is of very great importance to businesses which have mutual dealings with customers and suppliers, but it is of greater importance to banks and other providers of finance for business. Although this matter sounds very technical and is very technical, it should not be disregarded as being a technical point. It is a point of great materiality.
When the Bill left your Lordships' House Clause 161 was accepted by members of the Insolvency Practitioners' Association and several learned ladies and gentlemen who have advised on insolvency practice. It is believed by those who advise me that the Government then started tinkering with Clause 161 and that that tinkering led to so many complications that Ministers decided to delete the clause completely. I am advised that this is giving rise to a great deal of concern among those who practise in insolvency because Section 323 of the 1986 Act gives rise to enormous complexity and difficulty of interpretation. Clause 161 was a satisfactory clarification of the position. There is no dispute about what the position should be. It was believed that Clause 161 should remain in the Bill.

1123
I think that it would be wrong to allow the Bill to leave Parliament for its Royal Asset without making this point and without having on the record a statement from the Government as to why they think that the views of the insolvency practitioners were wrong that Clause 161 should remain in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's speech. It may help if I briefly set out the background to Clause 161. Set-off has been a basic principle of bankruptcy law since the last century. Before the Insolvency Act 1986 the provision was detailed in the Bankruptcy Act 1914, which had stood the test of time. There was no intention significantly to amend the law relating to set-off when insolvency law was reviewed in 1985–86. The existing legislation —Section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 —is therefore closely based on the provisions of the earlier Act.
Set-off permits a creditor to add up all his mutual credits and debits with an insolvent person and claim the net figure. Clause 161 was introduced to respond to doubts expressed as to whether Section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 permits debts which were not due and payable at the commencement of a bankruptcy to be incorporated in a set-off. The clause substitutes a new Section 323 and seeks to deal with the perceived doubt by omitting the word "due". Following further consideration we have concluded that the clause, while it clarifies the position of some contingent claims, potentially widens the scope of those claims capable of being included in the set-off unacceptably and creates fresh uncertainty. It is desirable as far as possible to maintain the principle of pari passu or fair distribution in insolvency. It is also desirable to avoid creating fresh uncertainty. We have concluded that it would be preferable to retain the existing law and to leave it to the courts to develop this point.
The variety of claims that can be outstanding between an insolvent person and his creditors and debtors is very wide. In some cases it is appropriate that they should be available for set-off and in others it is not. The approach that English law adopts to this matter is to make a general statement of principle, leaving the courts considerable discretion in applying it to different facts. Other legal systems list in considerable detail all the different kinds of claim that can, and cannot, be set-off.
There are advantages in either approach, but as long as we retain the former it is important that the scope for claiming a set-off should be kept within bounds. I am not satisfied that this clause has this effect, and in all the circumstances it is sensible and desirable to delete the clause. I hope therefore that the House will in due course agree with the Commons in their proposal and that the noble Lord will therefore see fit not to press his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reading out his brief with such
1124
elegance. I am bound to say that I do not think that his department has taken on board the arguments that have been put forward by the Insolvency Practitioners Association and those who advise the Law Society, all of whom say that Clause 161, as it left our House, was a useful, sensible clarification, and have not been persuaded to the contrary by any arguments that have been put forward by departmental officials.
I accept that we have on the record a statement of what the department believes. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it is not agreed by many distinguished lawyers (including those who advise the Law Society on the matter) that greater uncertainty would be created by including Clause 161. It is believed that Clause 161, which was a sensible clause, would have clarified section 323. The noble Lord is right in reciting the history of the Bankruptcy Act and the Insolvency Act 1986 and the problems to which those Acts have given rise. Nevertheless I think that the Government ought to be aware that the courts will have enormous difficulty in interpreting the law as it now stands if Clause 161 is not included.
However, as I said, although this is an important matter it is a technical matter and I do not intend to divide the House on the issue. We have had a statement of how the Government see the position. I believe, and others believe —this is not a party-political issue in any way —that the Government are wrong. We will see in the event how that works out. I 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. 315.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
316 After Clause 161, under the heading 'Miscellaneous and General Provisions' insert—
Summary proceedings in Scotland for offences in connection with disqualification of directors
'. In section 21 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (application of provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986), after subsection (3) add —
"(4) For the purposes of summary proceedings in Scotland, section 431 of that Act applies to summary proceedings for an offence under section 11 or 13 of this Act as it applies to summary proceedings for an offence under Parts I to VII of that Act.".
Prosecutions in connection with insider dealing
. In section 8 of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 (punishment of contraventions), in subsection (2) (institution of proceedings in England and Wales), for "by the Secretary of State or by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions".substitute "by, or with the consent of, the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions".'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 316, and with permission I should

1125
like to speak to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 at the same time. The first part of Amendment No.316 harmonises the position in Scotland with that already existing in England and Wales, so that offences under Section 11 or Section 13 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 can be prosecuted in a summary manner up to three years from the commission of the offence and not six months, as the law in Scotland currently permits. The second part of Amendment No. 316 amends Section 8(2) of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. At present a prosecution may be instituted under Section 8(2) by the Secretary of State, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or a person acting with the consent of the DPP.
The effect of this new clause is that the Secretary of State will be empowered to consent to insider dealing proceedings being brought by third parties, as can the Director of Public Prosecutions as the section now stands. The reason for the amendment is to permit the International Stock Exchange, which has built up its expertise in insider-dealing cases, to carry a case through to prosecution. Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 are consequential on Amendment No. 316, simply amending the Title of the Bill to include a reference to the Insider Dealing Act and the Company Directors Disqualification Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
317 Clause 163, page 155, line 9, after 'Or insert 'In section 104 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (power to assimilate law relating to building societies and law relating to companies), in subsection (2) (relevant provisions of that Act), omit the word "and" before paragraph (d) and after that paragraph add —
"; and
(e) section 110 (provisions exempting officers and auditors from liability)."
(2)'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 317.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
318 Leave out Clause 165 and insert —
'Provisions extending to Northern Ireland.
. —(1) The provisions of this Act extend to Northern Ireland so far as they amend, or provide for the amendment of, an enactment which so extends.
(2) So far as any provision of this Act amends the Companies Act 1985 or the Insolvency Act 1986, its application to companies registered or incorporated in Northern Ireland is subject to section 745(1) of the Companies Act 1985 or section 441(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the case may be.
(3) In Part III (investigations and powers to obtain information), sections 76 to 81, (Exercise of powers in relation to Northern Ireland), (Prosecutions) (Offences by
1126
bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations) and (Jurisdiction and procedure in respect of Offences) (powers exercisable to assist overseas regulatory authorities) extend to Northern Ireland.
(4) Part VI (mergers and related matters) extends to Northern Ireland.
(5) In Part VII (financial markets and insolvency) the following provisions extend to Northern Ireland —

(a) sections 125 and 126 (introductory provisions and definitions of "market contract"),

(b) section 127 and Schedule 16 (additional requirements for recognition of investment exchange or clearing house),

(c) sections 128, 131, 133, (Powers of Secretary of State to give directions), (Application to determine whether default proceedings to be taken), 138 and 139 (provisions relating to recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses),

(d) sections 140, (Certain money market institutions) and (Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England) (power to extend provisions to other financial markets),

(e) section 152 (indemnity for certain acts), and

(f) sections (Power to make further provision by regulations), 153, (Construction of references to parties to market contracts), and 154 to 157 (supplementary provisions).

(6) Part (sections (Statement of principle), 158, (Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations), (Codes of practice), (Regulations with other regulatory authorities), (Construction of references to incurring civil liability), (Offers of unlisted securities), (Offers of securities by private companies and old public companies), (Jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session), 159, (Offers of short-dated debentures), (Standard of protection for investors), (Costs of compliance), 160 and (Consequential amendments and delegation of functions on commencement)) (amendments of Financial Services Act 1986) extends to Northern Ireland.
(7) Part (section (Transfer of securities) (transfer of securities) extends to Northern Ireland. Subject to any Order made after the passing of this Act by virtue of section 3(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. the transfer of securities shall not be a transferred matter for the purposes of that Act but shall for the purposes of section 3(2) be treated as specified in Schedule 3 to that Act.
(8) Part (sections (Summary proceedings in Scotland for offences connected with disqualification of directors), (Prosecutions in connection with insider dealing), 162, 163, 164, (Provisions extending to Northern Ireland), (Making of corresponding provision for Northern Ireland), 166 and 167 (miscellaneous and general provisions), this section, section (making of corresponding provision for Northern Ireland), 166 and 167 (general provisions) extend to Northern Ireland.
(9) Except as mentioned above, the provisions of this Act do not extend to Northern Ireland.
Making of corresponding provision for Northern Ireland
. —(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it is only made for purposes corresponding to the purposes of provisions of this Act to which this section applies —

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(2) The provisions of this Act to which this section applies are —

(a) Parts I to V, and

(b) Part VII, except sections 127, 128 and 139 and Schedule 16.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 318. Amendment No. 318 inserts two new clauses in place of the present Clause 165. The new clauses govern the application of the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland. They set out the provisions more clearly than before and incorporate changes made in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
319 Clause 166, page 156, line 36, after 'The' insert 'following provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent —

(a) in Part V (amendments of company law), section 131 (application to declare dissolution of company void);

(b) in Part VI (mergers)—

(i) sections 118 to 121, and

(ii) paragraphs 2 to 11, 13 to 15, 17 to 19 and 21 to 23 of Schedule 15, and section 124 so far as relating to those paragraphs;

(c) on Part (sections (Statements of principle), 158, (Application of designated rules and regulations to members of self-regulating organisations), (Codes of practice), (Regulations with other regulatory authorities), (Construction of references to incurring civil liability), (Offers of unlisted securities), (Offers of securities by private companies and old public companies), (Jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session), 159, (Offers of short-dated debentures), (Standard of protection for investors), (Costs of compliance), 160 and (Consequential amendments and delegation of functions on commencement)) (amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986), section (Offers of short-dated debentures) (Offers of short-dated debentures);

(d) in Part (sections (Summary proceedings in Scotland for offences connected with disqualification of directors), (Prosecutions in connection with insider dealing), 162, 163, 164, (Provisions extending to Northern Ireland), (Making of corresponding provision for Northern Ireland), 166 and 167) (miscellaneous and general provisions), the repeals made by Schedule 17 in sections 71, 74, 88 and 89 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Fair Trading Act 1973, and section 164 so far as relating to those repeals.

(1A) The other'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 319. That brings certain provisions of the Bill into effect upon Royal Assent. The most important of these are in Part VI of the Bill on mergers. They are the new powers to accept undertakings to divest instead of making a reference, the temporary restriction on share dealings once a reference is made, and the improved powers for looking at so-called creeping acquisitions. These provisions are likely to prove of sufficient immediate use to warrant having immediate effect on Royal Assent. They do not need complicated commencement arrangements and will not impinge unfairly on business. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —( Lord Trefgarne.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 319
319A Line 30, after ("(1A)") insert ("Except for the provisions of Part I ("Company accounts") which shall come into force in respect of financial years beginning on or after 1 June 1990,")
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 319A. The reasons for this amendment are to introduce a relatively small delay in introducing Part I. Briefly, the reasons are: first, the comparative figures rule will require 1989 figures to be referred under the Dearing rules—the new rules—as well as the 1990 figures. This is going to mean that there is a problem for companies who have not prepared their 1989 figures under the new rules.
The second point is that presenting information—requires the appropriate underlying records to be in place. If we take the new definition of subsidiaries, or undertakings to be consolidated under the new definitions for a group—for instance, partnerships and other entities—the relevant records which would enable the 1989 figures to be adjusted would probably not be available because they are not currently subject to Companies Act rules. It has clearly not been possible to finalise plans for doing all this while the Bill has been progressing through Parliament and contantly amended.
Therefore, it seems to us that it would be sensible to have the commencement date for Part I delayed for six months, or indeed three months if that is the wish of the Government. It would at least relieve accounts made up to the two most popular balance sheet dates, which are of course the end of December and the end of March.
Moved, That Amendment No. 319A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 319, be agreed to. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord's amendment, I can best and most shortly say that our position is that we are doing our best to meet the 7th Directive in a timely and prompt way. That is why we have the dates that we have in the Bill. If we were to agree to what the noble Lord is proposing, we would find ourselves departing a little further from the 7th Directive, and that would be regrettable. In the light of these considerations, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand the pressure of time that the directive places upon us. Nevertheless, I am sure that this will create enormous difficulty, and I hope that the Government recognise the difficulty. If the noble Lord would like to intervene again, I would be perfectly happy to give way.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships' permission to intervene again. I recognise the fact that companies will have to prepare prior year figures. However, I emphasise that we have received no representations on the point beyond that made by the noble Lord. Therefore we do not believe that there will be any real problem. The provision

1129
will apply only to the financial years after January, 1990.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. My advice comes from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. If it has not made representations and nor have any of the major accountants, it is their fault rather than anyone else's. However, I thought that the Government should consider the fact that inevitably there will be problems as a result of the new definition of undertakings to be consolidated.
If there is some way by some form of regulation that the Government can allow auditors and companies to alleviate the problems, I hope that they will take that route. However, I believe that as it stands the provision will cause many companies and auditors a great number of problems. I recognise that the Minister has said all that he can on the subject, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 319 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
320 Page 156, line 42, at end insert —
'(3) The Secretary of State may also by order under this section amend any enactment which refers to the commencement of a provision brought into force by the order so as to substitute a reference to the actual date on which it comes into force.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 320.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
321 Clause 167, page 157, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 321. The amendment removes the privilege motion which this House set on the Bill at Third Reading.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
322 Schedule 1, page 159, line 21, at end insert —
'Compliance with accounting standards
6A. After paragraph 36 (disclosure of accounting policies) insert —
"36A. It shall be stated whether the accounts have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards and particulars of any material departure from those standards and the reasons for it shall be given.".'.
323 Page 159, line 25, at end insert —
'Loans in connection with assistance for purchase of company's own shares
7A. In paragraph 51(2) (disclosure of outstanding loans in connection with certain cases of financial assistance for purchase of company's own shares), after "153(4)(b)" insert ",(bb)".'.
324 Page 159, line 31, leave out '21(4) and (5)' and insert '21(1)(d)'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 322 to 324.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
325 Schedule 2, page 161, line 11, leave out 'that of the parent company' and insert 'the end of the parent company's financial year'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 325. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 336, 337, 339 to 343 and 346 to 356. The amendments make minor changes to Schedules 2 and 3. Amendments Nos. 325, 339, 340, 342, 346 and 349 make identical changes in a number of places in Schedules 2 and 3 to the meaning of the expression "relevant financial year". In various contexts it removes an ambiguity which might otherwise cause confusion in relation to various references to financial years.
Amendments Nos. 336 and 337 correct small defects in paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. That paragraph requires that where a parent company excludes one or more of its subsidiary undertakings from its consolidated accounts in accordance with the requirements of the new section 229(4) the group's interests in that undertaking shall be shown by way of the equity method of accounting.
Amendment No. 341 removes an unnecessary burden. Amendments Nos. 343, 350 to 356 make minor changes to paragraphs 10 and 29 of Schedule 3. I hope that all the amendments will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
326 Page 162, line 6, leave out 'the business of the undertaking as a whole' and insert 'a business of the undertaking'.
327 Page 162, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert —
'(4) There shall be set off against the acquisition cost of the interest in the shares of the undertaking held by the parent company and its subsidiary undertakings the interest of the parent company and its subsidiary undertakings in the adjusted capital and reserves of the undertaking acquired.
For this purpose —
"the acquisition cost" means the amount of any cash consideration and the fair value of any other consideration, together with such amount (if any) in respect of fees and other expenses of the acquisition as the company may determine, and
"the adjusted capital and reserves" of the undertaking acquired means its capital and reserves at the date of the acquisition after adjusting the identifiable assets and liabilities of the undertaking to fair values as at that date.'.
(5) There shall be set off against the aggregate of—
328 Page 163, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert —

(a) the appropriate amount in respect of qualifying shares issued by the parent company or its subsidiary undertakings in consideration for the acquisition of shares in the undertaking acquired, and

(b) the fair value of any other consideration for the acquisition of shares in the undertaking acquired, determined as at the date when those shares were acquired,

the nominal value of the issued share capital of the undertaking acquired held by the parent company and its subsidiary undertakings.
(6) The resulting amount shall be shown as an adjustment to the consolidated reserves.
(7) In sub-paragraph (5)(a) "qualifying shares" means —

(a) shares in relation to which section 131 (merger relief) applies, in respect of which the appropriate amount is the nominal value; or

(b) shares in relation to which section 132 (relief in respect of group reconstructions) applies, in respect of which the appropriate amount is the nominal value together with any minimum premium value within the meaning of that section.'.

329 Page 163, line 10, at end insert —
'11A. —(1) Where a group is acquired, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply with the following adaptations.
(2) References to shares of the undertakings acquired shall be construed as references to shares of the parent undertaking of the group.
(3) Other references to the undertaking acquired shall be construed as references to the group; and references to the assets and liabilities, income and expenditure and capital and reserves of the undertaking acquired shall be construed as references to the assets and liabilities, income and expenditure and capital and reserves of the group after making the set-offs and other adjustments required by this Schedule in the case of group accounts.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 326 to 329. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 455. They fine tune the provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill which prescribe rules deriving from the Seventh Directive for the accounting treatment of mergers and acquisitions. The changes have been brought forward by the Government following discussions with outside accountants since the Bill last left your Lordships' House and also in response to a valid point made in another place by the honourable Member for Norwich South, Mr. John Garrett.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated the Government's debt to my honourable friend in another place. The point that he made was one that I raised at the same time. As the Minister will know, because we had a number of exchanges on the matter in Committee and on Report, merger accounting has been a matter of consistent trouble. We are not completely satisfied that the Government have interpreted the directive in the best possible way. Nevertheless, the Government have given it that interpretation and we have tried to argue that there could be different interpretations. That being so, we must accept that the Government have taken the decision which I do not intend to oppose. However, I believe that it will
1132
give rise to enormous difficulties in practice but perhaps that is the fault of the directive rather than the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
330 Page 163, line 14, leave out from first 'the' to 'and' and insert 'name of the undertaking acquired or, where a group was acquired, the name of the parent undertaking of that group'.
331 Page 163, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert —
'(4) The profit or loss of the undertaking or group acquired shall be stated —

(a) for the period from the beginning of the financial year of the undertaking or, as the case may be, of the parent undertaking of the group, up to the date of the acquisition, and

(b) for the previous financial year of that undertaking or parent undertaking;

and there shall also be stated the date on which the financial year referred to in paragraph (a) began.'.
332 Page 163, line 25, after 'undertaking', insert 'or group'.
333 Page 163, line 31, after 'undertaking', insert 'or group'.
334 Page 163, line 33, at end insert —
'(7) In ascertaining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), (5) or (6) the profit or loss of a group, the book values of assets and liabilities of a group or the amount of the assets and liabilities of a group, the set-offs and other adjustments required by this Schedule in the case of group accounts shall be made.'.
335 Page 163, line 39, leave out paragraph 14 and insert —
'14. Where during the financial year there has been a disposal of an undertaking or group which significantly affects the figures shown in the group accounts, there shall be stated in a note to the accounts —

(a) the name of that undertaking or, as the case may be, of the parent undertaking of that group, and

(b) the extent to which the profit or loss shown in the group accounts is attributable to profit or loss of that undertaking or group.'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 330 to 335. They improve the new disclosure requirements in paragraphs 12 to 14 of Schedule 2. We have introduced them in order to help the reader of accounts unravel the confusing treatment of presentation of mergers and acquisitions sometimes found in company accounts. Better statutory disclosure in this area commanded widespread support in the consultation exercise carried out last year by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
336 Page 165, line 4, after 'consolidation)', insert ', and the amount of profit or loss attributable to such an interest,'.
337 Page 165, line 5, leave out 'accounts' and insert 'balance sheet or, as the case may be, in the consolidated profit and loss account'.
338 Page 165, line 31, leave out from 'matters' to end of line 12 on page 166 and insert —
'(4) The provisions of paragraphs 5 to 11 of Schedule 10A (rights to be taken into account and attribution of rights) apply in determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether an undertaking holds 20 per cent. or more of the voting rights in another undertaking.'.
339 Schedule 3, page 167, line 38, leave out 'that of the company' and insert 'the end of the company's financial year'.
340 Page 167, line 45, leave out 'that of the company' and insert 'the end of the company's financial year'.
341 Page 169, line 21, at end insert —
'(1A) That information need not be given if—

(a) the company is exempt by virtue of section 228 from the requirement to prepare group accounts (parent company included in accounts of larger group), and

(b) the investment of the company in all undertakings in which it has such a holding as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is shown, in aggregate, in the notes to the accounts by way of the equity method of valuation.'.

342 Page 169, line 33, leave out 'that of the company' and insert 'the end of the company's financial year'.
343 Page 170, line 11, after 'were', insert 'at the time of the disposal'.
344 Page 171, line 9, leave out 'in'.
345 Page 171, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert —
'(4) For the purposes of any of those provisions, 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 attached to the shares are exercisable only in accordance with his instructions, and

(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 attached to the shares are execisable only in his interests.'.

346 Page 172, line 39, leave out 'that of the company' and insert 'the end of the company's financial year'.
347 Page 173, line 15, leave out 'that of the company' and insert 'the end of the company's financial year'.
348 Page 175, line 18, leave out 'that of the company' and insert 'the end of the company's financial year'.
349 Page 176, line 12, leave out 'that of the parent company' and insert 'the end of the parent company's financial year'.
350 Page 176, line 20, leave out 'company makes' and insert 'parent company made'.
351 Page 176, line 26, leave out 'consolidated' and insert 'parent company's individual and group'.
352 Page 176, line 29, leave out 'consolidated' and insert 'group'.
353 Page 176, line 32, leave out 'an undertaking included in the consolidation' and insert 'the parent company'.
354 Page 176, line 35, leave out from 'year' to 'on' in line 36.
355 Page 176, line 40, leave out from 'year' to 'on' in line 41.
356 Page 176, line 43, after 'were', insert 'at the time of the disposal'.
357 Page 178, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert —
'(4) 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 attached to the shares are exercisable only in accordance with his instructions, and

(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 attached to the shares are exercisable only in his interests.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 336 to 357.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
358 Schedule 4, page 178, line 16, leave out 'minor'.
359 Page 178, line 28, after 'with', insert 'the management of'.
360 Page 178, leave out lines 44 to 46.
361 Page 180, line 13, at end insert—
'(4) References to pensions include benefits otherwise than in cash and in relation to so much of a pension as consists of such a benefit references to its amount are to the estimated money value of the benefit.
The nature of any such benefit shall also be disclosed.'.
362 Page 180, line 22, after 'with', insert 'the management of'.
363 Page 180, line 24, after 'with', insert 'the management of'.
364 Page 180, line 43, after 'with', insert 'the management of'.
365 Page 181, line 21, at end insert —
'(4) References to amounts paid to or receivable by a person include amounts paid to or receivable by a person connected with him or a body corporate controlled by him (but not so as to require an amount to be counted twice).'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 358 to 365. When the Bill was last before your Lordships substantial improvements were made to the provision relating to the disclosure of directors' emoluments. These amendments further refine those provisions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we agree with the amendments. We were glad to see that the Government amended the Bill in our House in respect of this matter. We believe that they clarify certain outstanding issues and we are grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
366 Insert the following new Schedule —
'MATTERS To BE INCLUDED IN DIRECTORS' REPORT
1. Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985 (matters to be included in directors' report) is amended as follows.
Subsidiary undertakings.
2.—(1) In paragraph 1(1) (significant changes in fixed assets) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings".
(2) In paragraph 6 (general information), for "subsidiaries" in each place where it occurs (three times) subsitute "subsidiary undertakings".
Directors' interests
3. For paragraph 2 (directors' interests) substitute —
"2. —(1) The information required by paragraphs 2A and 2B shall be given in the directors' report, or by way of notes to the company's annual accounts, with respect to each person who at the end of the financial year was a director of the company.
(2) In those paragraphs —

(a) "the register" means the register of directors' interests kept by the company under section 325; and

(b) references to a body corporate being in the same group as the company are to its being a subsidary or holding company, or another subsidiary of a holding company, of the company.

1135
2A. —(1) It shall be stated with respect to each director whether, according to the register, he was at the end of the financial year interested in shares in or debentures of the company or any other body corporate in the same group.
(2) If he was so interested, there shall be stated the number of shares in and amount of debentures of each body (specifying it) in which, according to the register, he was then interested.
(3) If a director was interested at the end of the financial year in shares in or debentures of the company or any other body corporate in the same group —

(a) it shall also be stated whether, according to the register, he was at the beginning of the financial year (or, if he was not then a director, when he becomes one) interested in shares in or debentures of the company or any other body corporate in the same group, and

(b) if he was so interested, there shall be stated the number of shares in and amount of debentures of each body (specifying it) in which, according to the register, he was then interested.

(4) In this paragraph references to an interest in shares or debentures have the same meaning as in section 324; and references to the interest of a director include any interest falling to be treated as his for the purposes of that section.
(5) The reference above to the time when a person became a director is, in the case of a person who became a director on more than one occasion, to the time when he first became a director.
2B. —(1) It shall be stated with respect to each director whether, according to the register, any right to subscribe for shares in or debentures of the company or another body corporate in the same group was during the financial year granted to, or exercised by, the director or a member of his immediate family.
If any such right was granted to, or exercised by, any such person during the financial year, there shall be stated the number of shares in and amount of debentures of each body (specifying it) in respect of which, according to the register, the right was granted or exercised.
(3) A director's "immediate family" means his or her spouse and infant children; and for this purpose "children" includes step-children, and "infant", in relation to Scotland, means pupil or minor.
(4) The reference above to a member of the director's immediate family does not include a person who is himself or herself a director of the company.".'.
367 Schedule 185, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 187 and insert —
'Preliminary
Schedule 9 to the Companies Act 1985 is amended in accordance with this Schedule, as follows —

(a) for the heading of the Schedule substitute "SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR BANKING AND INSURANCE COMPANIES AND GROUPS":

(b) omit the introductory paragraph preceding Part I, together with its heading;

(c) make the present provisions of Parts I to V of the Schedule (as amended by Part I of this Schedule) Part I of the Schedule, and accordingly —

(i) for the descriptive Part heading before paragraph 2 substitute "FORM AND CONTENT OF ACCOUNTS", and

(ii) omit the Part headings before paragraphs 19, 27, 31 and 32;

(d) the provisions of Parts II, III and IV of this Schedule have effect as Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 9 to the Companies Act 1985.

FORM AND CONTENT OF ACCOUNTS
1. In paragraph 10(1)(c) of Schedule 9 to the Companies Act 1985 (disclosure of outstanding loans in connection with certain cases of financial assistance for purchase of company's own shares), after "153(4)(b)" insert ',(bb)".
2. In paragraph 13 of that Schedule (information supplementing balance sheet), omit sub-paragraph (3) (information as to acquisition of, or creation of lien or charge over, company's own shares).
3. In paragraph 17(5) of that Schedule (statement of turnover: companies exempt from requirement) for "neither a holding company nor a subsidiary of another body corporate" substitute "neither a parent company nor a subsidiary undertaking".
4. After paragraph 18 of that Schedule insert —
"Supplementary provisions
18A. —(1) Accounting policies shall be applied consistently within the same accounts and from one financial year to the next.
(2) If it appears to the directors of a company that there are special reasons for departing from the principle stated in sub-paragraph (1) in preparing the company's accounts in respect of any financial year, they may do so; but particulars of the departure, the reasons for it and its effect shall be given in a note to the accounts.
18B. It shall be stated whether the accounts have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards, and particulars of any material departure from those standards and the reasons for it shall be given.
18C.—(l) In respect of every item shown in the balance sheet or profit and loss account, or stated in a note to the accounts, there shall be shown or stated the corresponding amount for the financial year immediately preceding that to which the accounts relate, subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(2) Where the corresponding amount is not comparable, it shall be adjusted and particulars of the adjustment and the reasons for it shall be given in a note to the accounts.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to an amount shown —

(a) as an amount the source or application of which is required by paragraph 8 above (reserves and provisions),

(b) in pursuance of paragraph 13(10) above (acquisitions and disposals of fixed assets),

(c) by virtue of paragraph 12 of Schedule 4A (details of accounting treatment of acquisitions),

(d) by virtue of paragraph 2, 8(3), 16, 21(1)(d), 22(4) or (5), 24(3) or (4) or 27(3) or (4) of Schedule 5 (shareholdings in other undertakings), or

(e) by virtue of Part II or III of Schedule 6 (loans and other dealings in favour of directed and others).".

5. —(1) Before paragraph 19 of that Schedule insert the heading "Provisions where company is parent company or subsidiary undertaking"; and that paragraph is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for the words from "is a holding company" onwards substitute "is a parent company".
(3) In sub-paragraphs (2)—

(a) for "subsidiaries" (four times) substitute "subsidiary undertakings", and

(b) in paragraph (a), for "'Part I" substitute "paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 13 and 14".

(4) Omit sub-paragraphs (3) to (7).
6. For paragraph 20 of that Schedule substitute —
"20. —(1) This paragraph applies where the company is a subsidiary undertaking.
(2) The balance sheet of the company shall show —

(a) the aggregate amount of its indebtedness to undertakings of which it is a subsidiary undertaking or which are fellow subsidiary undertakings, and

(b) the aggregate amount of the indebtedness of all such undertakings to it,

distinguishing in each case between indebtedness in respect of debentures and otherwise.
(3) The balance sheet shall also show the aggregate amount of assets consisting of shares in fellow subsidiary undertakings.".
7. Omit paragraphs 21 to 26 of that Schedule.
8. —(1) Before paragraph 27 of that Schedule insert the heading "Exceptions for certain companies"; and that paragraph is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) for "Part I of this Schedule" substitute "paragraphs 2 to 18 of this Schedule", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for the words from "paragraphs 15" to the end substitute "and paragraph 15".

(3) In sub-paragraph (4), omit "of said Part I".
9. In paragraph 28 of that Schedule, in sub-paragraph (1) (twice) and in sub-paragraph (2) for "Part I" substitute "paragraphs 2 to 18".
10. After that paragraph insert —
"28A. Where a company is entitled to, and has availed itself of, any of the provisions of paragraph 27 or 28 of this Schedule, section 235(2) only requires the auditors to state whether in their opinion the accounts have been properly prepared in accordance with this Act.".
11. Omit paragraphs 29 to 31 of that Schedule.
12. Before paragraph 32 of that Schedule insert the heading "Interpretation"; and in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of that paragraph for "this Schedule" substitute "this Part of this Schedule".
13. In paragraph 36 of that Schedule for "this Schedule" substitute "this Part of this Schedule".'.
368 Page 187, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 189 and insert —
'Undertakings to be included in consolidation
1. The following descriptions of undertaking shall not be excluded from consolidation under section 229(4) (exclusion of undertakings whose activities are different from those of the undertakings consolidated)—

(a) in the case of a banking group, an undertaking (other than a credit institution) whose activities are a direct extension of or ancillary to banking business;

(b) in the case of an insurance group, an undertaking (other than one carrying on insurance business) whose activities are a direct extension of or ancillary to insurance business.

For the purposes of paragraph (a) "banking" means the carrying on of a deposit-taking business within the meaning of the Banking Act 1987.
General application of provisions applicable to individual accounts
2. —(1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A (application to group accounts of provisions applicable to individual accounts), the reference in subparagraph (1) to the provisions of Schedule 4 shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of Part I of this Schedule; and accordingly —

(a) the reference in sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 59 of Schedule 4 shall be construed as a reference to paragraphs 19(2) and 20 of Part I of this Schedule; and

(b) sub-paragraph (3) shall be omitted.

(2) The general application of the provisions of Part I of this Schedule in place of those of Schedule 4 is subject to the following provisions.
Treatment of goodwill
3. —(1) The rules in paragraph 21 of Schedule 4 relating to the treatment of goodwill, and the rules in paragraphs 17 to 19 of that Schedule (valuation of fixed assets) so far as they relate to goodwill, apply for the purpose of dealing with any goodwill arising on consolidation.
(2) Goodwill shall be shown as a separate item in the balance sheet under an appropriate heading; and this applies notwithstanding anything in paragraph 10(1)(b) or (2) of Part I of this Schedule (under which goodwill, patents and trade marks may be stated in the company's individual accounts as a single item).
Minority interests and associated undertakings
4. The information required by paragraphs 16 and 19 to 21 of Schedule 4A (minority interests and associated undertakings) to be shown under separate items in the
1138
formats set out in Part 1 of Schedule 4 shall be shown separately in the balance sheet and profit and loss account under appropriate headings.
5. —(1) Where a banking or insurance company is entitled to the exemptions conferred by paragraph 27 or 28 of Part I of this Schedule, a group headed by that company is similarly entitled.
(2) Paragraphs 27(4), 28(2) and 28A (accounts not to be taken to be other than true and fair; duty of auditors) apply accordingly where advantage is taken of those exemptions in relation to group accounts.
Information as to undertaking in which shares held as result of financial assistance operation
6. —(1) The following provisions apply where the parent company of a banking group has a subsidiary undertaking which—

(a) is a credit institution of which shares are held as a result of a financial assistance operation with a view to its reorganisation or rescue, and

(b) is excluded from consolidation under section 229(3)(c) (interest held with a view to resale).

(2) Information as to the nature and terms of the operation shall be given in a note to the group accounts and there shall be appended to the copy of the group accounts delivered to the registrar in accordance with section 242 a copy of the undertaking's Latest individual accounts and, if it is a parent undertaking, its latest group accounts.
If the accounts appended are required by law to be audited, a copy of the auditors' report shall also be appended.
(3) If any document required to be appended is in a language other than English, the directors shall annex to the copy of that document delivered a translation of it into English, certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct translation.
(4) The above requirements are subject to the following qualifications —

(a) an undertaking is not required to prepare for the purposes of this paragraph accounts which would not otherwise be prepared, and if no accounts satisfying the above requirements are prepared none need be appended;

(b) the accounts of an undertaking need rot be appended if they would not otherwise be required to be published, or made available for public inspection, anywhere in the world, but in that case the reason for not appending the accounts shall be stated in a note to the consolidated accounts.

(5) Where a copy of an undertaking's accounts is required to be appended to the copy of the group accounts delivered to the registrar, that fact shall be stated in a note to the group accounts.
(6) Subsections (2), (4) and (5) of section 242 (penalties, &c. in case of default) apply in relation to the requirements of this paragraph as regards the delivery of documents to the registrar as they apply in relation to the requirements of subsection (1) of that section.'.
369 Page 189, line 6, at end insert —

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE: RELATED UNDERTAKINGS
1. Where accounts are prepared in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking companies or groups, there shall be disregarded for the purposes of —

(a) paragraphs 7(2)(a), 23(2)(a) and 26(2)(a) of Schedule 5 (information about significant holdings in undertakings other than subsidiary undertakings: definition of 10 per cent. holding), and

(b) paragraphs 9(1), 25(1) and 28(1) of that Schedule (additional information in case of 20 per cent. holding),

any holding of shares not comprised in the equity share capital of the undertaking in question.'.
370 Page 189, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert —
1. The provisions of this Part of this Schedule have effect with respect to the application of Schedule 6 (additional disclosure: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others) to a banking company or the holding company of such a company.'.
371 Page 189, line 25, leave out from 'to' to end of line 27 and insert 'a transaction, arrangement or agreement made by that banking company for —

(a) a person who was a director of the company preparing the accounts, or who was connected with such a director, or

(b) a person who was a chief executive or manager (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1987) of that company or its holding company.'.

372 Schedule 6, page 189, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 191 and insert —
'DIRECTORS' REPORT WHERE ACCOUNTS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIAL PROVISION FOR BANKING OR INSURANCE COMPANIES OR GROUPS
Recent Issues
1. —(1) This paragraph applies where a company prepares individual accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance companies.
(2) If in the financial year to which the accounts relate the company has issued any shares or debentures, the directors' report shall state the reason for making the issue, the classes of shares or debentures issued and, as respects each class, the number of shares or amount of debentures issued and the consideration received by the company for the issue.
Turnover and profitability
2. —(1) This paragraph applies where a company prepares group accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance groups.
(2) If in the course of the financial year to which the accounts relate the group carried on business of two or more classes (other than banking or discounting or a class prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 17(2) of Part I of Schedule 9) that in the opinion of the directors differ substantially from each other, there shall be contained in the directors' report a statement of —

(a) the proportions in which the turnover for the financial year (so far as stated in the consolidated accounts) is divided amongst those classes (describing them), and

(b) as regards business of each class, the extent or approximate extent (expressed in money terms) to which, in the opinion of the directors, the carrying on of business of that class contributed to or restricted the profit or loss of the groups for that year (before taxation.)

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) "the group" means the undertakings included in the consolidation.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph classes of business which in the opinion of the directors do not differ substantially from each other shall be treated as one class.
Labour force and wages paid
3. —(1) This paragraph applies where a company prepares individual or group accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance companies or groups.
(2) There shall be stated in the directors' report —

(a) the average number of persons employed by the company or, if the company prepares group accounts, by the company and its subsidiary undertakings, and

(b) the aggregate amount of the remuneration paid or payable to persons so employed.

(3) The average number of persons employed shall be determined by adding together the number of persons employed (whether throughout the week or not) in each week of the financial year and dividing that total by the number of weeks in the financial year.
(4) The aggregate amount of the remuneration paid or payable means the total amount of remuneration paid or
1140
payable in respect of the financial year; and for this purpose remuneration means gross remuneration and includes bonuses, whether payable under contract or not.
(5) The information required by this paragraph need not be given if the average number of persons employed is less than 100.
(6) No account shall be taken for the purposes of this paragraph of persons who worked wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom.
(7) This paragraph does not apply to a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company incorporated in Great Britain.
372A After Schedule 6, insert—

PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY UNDERTAKINGS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Introduction.
1. The provisions of this Schedule explain expressions used in section 257 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) and otherwise supplement that section.
Voting rights in an undertaking.
2. —(1) In section 257(2)(a) and (d) the references to the voting rights in an undertaking are to the rights conferred on shareholders in respect of their shares or, in the case of an undertaking not having a share capital, on members, to vote at general meetings of the undertaking on all, or substantially all, matters.
(2) In relation to an undertaking which does not have general meetings at which matters are decided by the exercise of voting rights, the references to holding a majority of the voting rights in the undertaking shall be construed as references to having the right under the constitution of the undertaking to direct the overall policy of the undertaking or to alter the terms of its constitution.
Right to appoint or remove a majority of the directors.
3. —(1) In section 257(2)(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 all, or substantially all, matters.
(2) An undertaking shall be treated as having the right to appoint to a directorship if —

(a) a person's appointment to it follows necessarily from his appointment as director of the undertaking, or

(b) the directorship is held by the undertaking itself.

(3) 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.
Right to exercise dominant influence.
4.—(1) For the purposes of section 257(2)(c) an undertaking shall not be regarded as having the right to exercise a dominant influence over another undertaking unless it has a right to give directions with respect to the operating and financial policies of that other undertaking which its directors are obliged to comply with whether or not they are for the benefit of that other undertaking.
(2) A "control contract" means a contract in writing conferring such a right which —

(a) is of a kind authorised by the memorandum or articles of the undertaking in relation to which the right is exercisable, and

(b) is permitted by the law under which that undertaking is established.

(3) This paragraph shall not be read as affecting the construction of the expression "actually exercises a dominant influence" in section 257(4)(a).
Rights exercisable only in certain circumstances or temporarily incapable of exercise.
5. —(1) 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.

(2) Rights which are normally exercisable but are temporarily incapable of exercise shall continue to be taken into account.
Rights held by one person on behalf of another.
6. Rights held by a person in a fiduciary capacity shall be treated as not held by him.
7. —(1) Rights held by a person as nominee for another shall be treated as held by the other.
(2) Rights shall be regarded as held as nominee for another if they are exercisable only on his instructions or with his consent or concurrence.
Rights attached to shares held by way of security.
8. 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, and

(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.

Rights attributed to parent undertaking.
9. —(1) Rights shall be treated as held by a parent undertaking if they are held by any of its subsidiary undertakings.
(2) Nothing in paragraph 7 or 8 shall be construed as requiring rights held by a parent undertaking to be treated as held by any of its subsidiary undertakings.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 8 rights shall be treated as being exercisable in accordance with the instructions or in the interests of an undertaking if they are exercisable in accordance with the instructions of or, as the case may be, in the interests of any group undertaking.
Disregard of certain rights.
10. The voting rights in an undertaking shall be reduced by any rights held by the undertaking itself.
Supplementary
11. References in any provision of paragraphs 6 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 paragraphs but not rights which by virtue of any such provision are to be treated as not held by him.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 366 to 372A.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
373 Schedule 7, page 192, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 3.
374 Page 192, line 5, at end insert —
'1A. In section 209(5)(a)(i) for "an authorised institution" substitute "a banking company".'.
375 Page 192, line 17, leave out from 'with' to 'insurance' in line 18 and insert 'the special provisions of Part VII relating to banking or'.
376 Page 192, line 21, at end insert —
'8A. In sections 338(4), 339(4), 343(1) and 344(2) for "an authorised institution", wherever occurring, substitute "a banking company".'.
377 Page 192, line 22, after '343(2)' insert 'and 4'.
378 Page 192, line 23, leave out 'Schedule 9B' and insert 'Part IV of Schedule 9'.
379 Page 192, line 24, leave out paragraph 10.
380 Page 193, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert —
'702. —(1) An overseas company shall in respect of each financial year of the company deliver to the registrar copies of the accounts and reports prepared in accordance with section 700.
If any document comprised in those accounts or reports is in a language other than English, the directors shall annex to the copy delivered a translation of it into English, certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct translation.'.
381 Page 193, line 16, leave out 'the delivering of' and insert 'delivering'.
382 Page 193, line 23, leave out from 'Britain' to end of line 26.
383 Page 193, line 29, leave out 'for delivering accounts'.
384 Page 193, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert —
'703. —(1) If the requirements of section 702(1) are not complied with before the end of the period allowed for delivering accounts and reports, or if the accounts and reports delivered do not comply with the requirements of this Act, the company and every person who immediately before the end of that period was a director of the company is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps for securing that the requirements in question would be complied with.
(3) It is not a defence in relation to a failure to deliver copies to the registrar to prove that the documents in question were not in fact prepared as required by this Act.'.
385 Page 193, line 45, at end insert —
'13A. For section 742 (expressions used in connection with accounts) substitute —
"Expressions used in connection with accounts.
742. —(1) In this Act, unless a contrary intention appears, the following expressions have the same meaning as in Part VII (accounts)—
"annual accounts",
"accounting reference date" and "accounting reference period",
"balance sheet" and "balance sheet date",
"current assets",
"financial year", in relation to a company,
"fixed assets",
"parent company" and "parent undertaking",
"profit and loss account", and
"subsidiary undertaking".
(2) References in this Act to "realised profits" and "realised losses", in relation to a company's accounts, shall be construed in accordance with section 262(2A).'.
386 Page 193, line 45, at end insert —
'13B. In section 744 (interpretation), omit the definition of "authorised institution" and at the appropriate place insert —
" 'banking company' means a company which is authorised under the Banking Act 1987;".
387 Page 194, leave out from '(1)' to 'and' in line 6 and insert omit paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4, or paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9";'.
388 Page 194, line 9, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
389 Page 194, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert —
'(5) In paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) omit "(whether as personal representative or otherwise)", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) omit ", paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4 and paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9";

and at the end add —
"(3) As respects sections 145, 146 and 148, sub-paragraph (1) above applies where a company is a personal representative as it applies where a company is a trustee.".'.
390 Page 195, line 24, leave out '(whether as personal representative or otherwise)'.
391 Page 195, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert —
'(2) "Undertaking" and "shares", in relation to an undertaking, have the same meaning as in Part VII.'.
392 Page 195, line 46, at end insert —
'15A. —(1) Part II of Schedule 3 (prospectuses: auditors' and accountants' reports to be set out) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 16 (auditors' reports), in sub-paragraph (2) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings" and for sub-paragraph (3) substitute —
"(3) If the company has subsidiary undertakings, the report shall —

(a) deal separately with the company's profits or losses as provided by sub-paragraph (2), and in addition deal either —

(i) as a whole with the combined profits or losses of its subsidiary undertakings, so far as they concern members of the company, or

(ii) individually with the profits or losses of each of its subsidiary undertakings, so far as they concern members of the company,

or, instead of dealing separately with the company's profits or losses, deal as a whole with the profits or losses of the company and (so far as they concern members of the company) with the combined profits and losses of its subsidiary undertakings; and

(b) deal separately with the company's assets and liabilities as provided by sub-paragraph (2), and in addition deal either —

(i) as a whole with the combined assets and liabilities of its subsidiary undertakings, with or without the company's assets and liabilities, or

(ii) individually with the assets and liabilities of each of its subsidiary undertakings,

indicating, as respects the assets and liabilities of its subsidiary undertakings, the allowance to be made for persons other than members of the company.".

(3) For paragraph 18 (accountants' reports) substitute —
"18. —(1) The following provisions apply if —

(a) the proceeds of the issue are to be applied directly or indirectly in any manner resulting in the acquisition by the company of shares in any other undertaking, or any part of the proceeds is to be so applied, and

(b) by reason of that acquisition or anything to be done in consequence of or in connection with it, that undertaking will become a subsidiary undertaking of the company.

(2) There shall be set out in the prospectus a report made by accountants upon —

(a) the profits or losses of the other undertaking in respect of each of the five financial years immediately preceding the issue of the prospectus, and

(b) the assets and liabilities of the other undertaking at the last date to which its accounts were made up.

(3) The report shall —

(a) indicate how the profits or losses of the other undertaking would in respect of the shares to be acquired have concerned members of the company and what allowance would have fallen to be made, in relation to assets and liabilities so dealt with, for holders of other shares, if the company had at all material times held the shares to be acquired, and

(b) where the other undertaking is a parent undertaking, deal with the profits or losses and the assets and liabilities of the undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings in the manner provided by paragraph 16(3) above in relation to the company and its subsidiary undertakings.

(4) In this paragraph "undertaking" and "shares", in relation to an undertaking, have the same meaning as in Part VII.".
1144
(4) In paragraph 22 (eligibility of accountants to make reports), for sub-paragraph (2) substitute —
"(2) Such a report shall not be made by an accountant who is an officer or servant, or a partner of or in the employment of an officer or servant, of —

(a) the company or any of its subsidiary undertakings,

(b) a parent undertaking of the company or any subsidiary undertaking of such an undertaking.".'.

393 Page 194, line 49, leave out paragraph 17 and insert —
17. —(1) Schedule 11 is amended as follows.
(2) For the heading substitute 'MODIFICATIONS OF PART VIII WHERE COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR BANKING OR INSURANCE COMPANIES'.
(3) In paragraphs 1 and 2(a) for "Schedule 9" substitute "Part I of Schedule 9".
(4) In paragraph 4 —

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) for "Schedule 9" substitute "Part I of Schedule 9", and

(b) omit sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).

(5) In paragraph 5 —

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) for "Part III of Schedule 9" substitute "paragraph 27 or 28 of Schedule 9", and

(b) omit sub-paragraph (b).

(6) In paragraph 6 —

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for "section 228" substitute "section 226" and for "section 258 and Schedule 9" substitute "section 255 and Part I of Schedule 9", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for "Part III of Schedule 9" substitute "paragraph 27 or 28 of Schedule 9".

(7) In paragraph 7(a) for "Schedule 9" substitute "Part I of Schedule 9".'.
394 Page 196, line 7, leave out paragraph 18 and insert —
'18. —(1) In Schedule 15A (renumbered 15B) (provisions applicable to mergers and divisions of public companies), paragraph 6 (documents to be made available for inspection) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) (directors' report on merger or division), after "directors' report" insert "referred to in paragraph 4 above".
(3) For sub-paragraph (1)(d) and (e) substitute —"(d) the company's annual accounts, together with the relevant directors' report and auditors' report, for the last three financial years ending on or before the relevant date; and
(e) if the last of those financial years ended more than six months before the relevant date, an accounting statement in the form described in the following provisions.".
(4) In sub-paragraph (1), after the paragraphs add —
"In paragraphs (d) and (e) "the relevant date" means one month before the first meeting of the company summoned under section 425(1) or for the purposes of paragraph 1.".
(5) For sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) substitute —
"(2) the accounting statement shall consist of —

(a) a balance sheet dealing with the state of the affairs of the company as at a date not more than three months before the draft terms were adopted by the directors, and

(b) Where the company would be required to prepare group accounts if that date were the last day of a financial year, a consolidated balance sheet dealing with the state of affairs of the company and its subsidiary undertakings as at that date.

(3) The requirements of this Act as to balance sheets forming part of a company's annual accounts, and the matters to be included in notes thereto, apply to any balance sheet required for the accounting statement, with such modifications as are necessary by reason of its being prepared otherwise than as at the last day of a financial year.
(4) Any balance sheet required for the accounting statement shall be approved by the board of directors

1145
and signed on behalf of the board by a director of the company.
(5) In relation to a company within the meaning of Article 3 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the references in this paragraph to the requirements of this Act shall be construed as reference to the corresponding requirements of that Order.".'.
395 Page 196, line 35, at end insert —
'18A. In Schedule 22 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), in the entry relating to Part VII, in column I, for "Schedule 10" substitute "Schedules 10 and 10A".'.
396 Page 196, line 36, leave out paragraph 19.
397 Page 196. line 45, column 2, leave out '224(4)' and insert '222(4)'.
398 Page 197, line 1, column 2, at end insert —

'In column 2, for "the section" substitute 'Part VII".'.

399 Page 197, line 7, column 2, at end insert —

'In column 2, for "company accounts" substitute "company's annual accounts, directors' report and auditors' report".'.

400 Page 197, line 8, leave out the words in column 2 and insert 'Omit the entry.'.
401 Page 197, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'requirements' in line 16 and insert 'Failure to comply with'.
402 Page 197, line 20, at end, insert —

'233(4A)

Approving defective accounts

2. On indictment

A fine.

2. Summary.

The statutory maximum.'.

403 Page 197, line 26, at end insert —

'252(6)

Failure to comply with requirements in relation to summary financial statements.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.',

404 Page 197, line 26, at end insert —
'(4) In the entry for section 703(1) (failure by oversea company to comply with requirements as to accounts and reports), in column 2 for the words from "s. 700" to the end substitute "requirements as to accounts and reports".'.
405 Page 198, line 12, at end insert —
'Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977
23A. —(1) Section 17 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 (British Shipbuilders: accounts and audit) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c) (duty to prepare consolidated accounts) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings".
(3) In subsection (9) (copies of accounts to be sent to the Secretary of State) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings" and for "subsidiary" substitute "subsidiary undertaking".
(4) After subsection (9) add —
"(10) In this section "subsidiary undertaking" has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".
Crown Agents Act 1979
23B. In section 22 of the Crown Agents Act 1979 (accounts and audit), in subsection (2) (duty to prepare consolidated accounts) for "subsidiaries" (three times) substitute "subsidiary undertakings", and at the end of that subsection add —
"In this subsection "subsidiary undertaking" has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".'.
406 Page 198, line 15, leave out '(3)(c)(i)' and insert '(1)(c)(i)'.
407 Page 198, line 23, at end insert —
'Oil and Pipelines Act 1985
26A. In Schedule 3 to the Oil and Pipelines Act 1985 (Oil and Pipelines Agency: financial and other provisions), in paragraph 9(2) (duty to prepare consolidated accounts)
1146
for "subsidiaries" (three times) substitute "subsidiary undertakings", and at the end of that sub-paragraph add —
"In this sub-paragraph "subsidiary undertaking" has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".
Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986
26B. In Schedule 2 to the Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986 (service marks), in paragraph 1(2) (provisions in which reference to trade mark includes service mark) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute —
"(ii) Part I of Schedule 4 and paragraphs 5(2)(d) and 10(1)(b) and (2) of Schedule 9 (form of company balance sheets); and".'.
408 Page 198, line 27, leave out from '(b)' to end of line and insert '(default orders)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i) for "section 244" substitute "section 242(4)", and

(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—

"(ia) section 245B of that Act (order requiring preparation of revised accounts),'.
409 Page 199, line 15, at end insert —
'(1A) In section 46(2) (duties of auditor of authorised institution), in paragraph (c) for "section 236" substitute "section 235(2)" and for "section 237" substitute "section 235(3) or section 236"; and in section 46(4) (adaptation of references for Northern Ireland) for "236 and 237" substitute "235(2) and 235(3) and 236".'.
410 Page 199, line 41, at end insert—
'Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1987
30. —(1) The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 180 (annual return of registered profit related pay scheme), in subsection (3) for "section 242(3)" substitute "section 244(3)".
(3) In section 565(6) (conditions for exemption from provisions relating to sub-contractors in construction industry: compliance with requirements of Companies Act 1985), in paragraph (a) for "section 227 and 241" substitute "sections 226, 241 and 242".
Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 (c.20)
31. In section 33 of the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 (duty to lay before Parliament copies of accounts of persons appointed to levy tolls), for subsection (2) substitute —
"(2) In relation to a company "accounts" in subsection (1) means the company's annual accounts for a financial year, together with the relevant directors' report and the auditors' report on those accounts.
Expressions used in this subsection have the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 373 to 410. They simply tidy up and complete Schedule 7 to the Bill which makes changes consequential on Part I of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, this is a large grouping to which we have not objected although a large number of points are covered. As the Minister has said, they are in general tidying up amendments. I wish to ask one question concerning banking companies which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 374 and 376. I understand that within the European Community there are moves to issue a draft directive on banking company accounts. As the noble Lord is aware, we on this side of the House

1147
believe that banking companies should be treated in exactly the same way as other companies. Can the noble Lord give us any indication of what progress is being made so that we can know roughly how long these amendments will stay on the statute?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand. However, I shall very readily find that out and convey it to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
411 Schedule 8, page 200, line 7, at end insert 'of this Act'.
412 Page 200, line 27, at end, insert 'of this Act'.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 427 to 429, 432 and 448. These are merely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
413 Page 201, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 202 and insert —
'4. —(1) The body must have rules to the effect that a person is not eligible for appointment as a company auditor unless —

(a) in the case of an individual, he holds an appropriate qualification;

(b) in the case of a firm —

(i) the individuals responsible for company audit work on behalf of the firm hold an appropriate qualification, and

(ii) the firm is controlled by qualified persons (see paragraph 5 below).

(2) This does not prevent the body from imposing more stringent requirements.
(3) A firm which has ceased to comply with the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) may be permitted to remain eligible for appointment as a company auditor for a period of not more than three months.'.
414 Page 202, leave out lines 7 to 13 and insert —
'5. —(1) The following provisions explain what is meant in paragraph 4(1)(b)(ii) by a firm being "controlled by qualified persons".
(2) For this purpose references to a person being qualified are, in relation to an individual, to his holding an appropriate qualification, and in relation to a firm, to its being eligible for appointment as a company auditor.
(3) A firm shall be treated as controlled by qualified persons if, and only if —

(a) a majority of the members of the firm are qualified persons, and

(b) where the firm's affairs are managed by a board of directors, committee or other management body, a majority of the members of that body are qualified persons or, if the body consist of two persons only, that at least one of them is a qualified person.'.

415 Page 202, leave out lines 14 to 25 and insert —
'(4) A majority of the members of a firm means —

(a) where under the firm's constitution matters are decided upon by the exercise of voting rights, members
1148
holding a majority of the rights to vote on all, or substantially all, matters;

(b) in any other case, members having such rights under the constitution of the firm as enable them to direct its overall policy or alter its constitution.

(5) A majority of the members of the management body of a firm means —

(a) where matters are decided at meetings of the management body by the exercise of voting rights, members holding a majority of the rights to vote on all, or substantially all, matters at such meetings.

(b) in any other case, members having such rights under the constitution of the firm as enable them to direct its overall policy or alter its consititution.'.

416 Page 202, leave out lines 26 to 48 and insert —
'(6) The provisions of paragraphs 5 to II of Schedule 10A to the Companies Act 1985 (rights to be taken into account and attribution of rights) apply for the purposes of this paragarph.'.
417 Page 203, line 2, leave out from first 'The' to 'that' and insert 'body must have adequate rules and practices designed to ensure'.
418 Page 203, line 19, leave out 'voting rights at any general meeting' and insert 'rights to vote on all, or substantially all, matters at general meetings'.
419 Page 203, line 23, leave out from 'have' to end of line and insert adequate rules and practices designed to ensure —'.
420 Page 203, line 28, leave out from 'have' to end of line and insert 'adequate rules and practices designed to ensure'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 413 to 420. In parenthesis, in answer to an earlier point, I am told that the bank accounts directive has recently been agreed and we have just finished consultation, which I hope meets the point put to me by the noble Lord.
The amendments have four main effects. First, a recognised supervisory body need only have rules to the effect that, in short, company auditors are controlled by qualified persons, rather than having to have rules and practices which secure that result. Similarly Amendments Nos. 417, 419 and 420 alter other relevant provisions in Schedule 8 so as to make it clear that a recognised supervisory body only has to have adequate rules and practices designed to ensure the desired objective, or has rules to a particular effect.
In making this change, the Members of another place had had regard to concerns expressed in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, who were concerned that, if taken too literally, the original requirement would prove an impossible hurdle, since no body could guarantee that its members will always obey the rules. Although it may be argued that, in context, the provisions did not demand this degree of perfection, the amendments will put the point beyond doubt.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for attending to what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said, on this matter. I believe that they had a very fair point and I think it is right that the Government adjusted the text in another place.

1149
Perhaps I may return to the comment made by the Minister on the previous amendment on the banking accounts directive. If that is now almost upon us, does that mean that we shall have a new Companies Bill as soon as the directive requires implementation, or would it not be better —and here I am arguing against myself—to have a clause allowing the Secretary of State to implement provisions of the directive by regulation?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
421 Page 203, line 30, leave out 'such persons as are mentioned below' and insert —

(a) individuals who do not hold an appropriate qualification, and

(b) persons who are not members of the firm,'.

422 Page 203, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph 3).
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 421 and 422. Those amendments change the restrictions on the categories of person who are to be prevented from exercising an undesirable influence over the conduct of company audit work. The effect is that a wider group of persons is to be prevented from exercising that influence.
Potentially any person who is unqualified could exercise undue influence, as could anyone who was not a member of the firm. Accordingly the amendments lay down that those persons are to be prevented from exercising any influence over the way in which the audit is conducted in circumstances in which that influence would be likely to affect the independence or integrity of the audit.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
423 Page 204, line 29, after 'have', insert 'adequate'.
424 Page 204, line 30, leave out 'are reasonably' and insert 'take such steps as may reasonably be expected of them to secure that they are'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 423 and 424. The amendments alter the test in the requirement that recognised supervisory bodies have rules and arrangements on meeting claims arising out of company audit work. As the Bill left your Lordships' House, the test entailed assessing whether the body's rules produce the result that company auditors will be reasonably able to meet claims if claims are made.
The amendments require an assessment of whether the rules and arrangements are designed to achieve the result that the company auditors take such steps as may reasonably be expected of them to secure that they are able to meet claims. The purpose is to reinforce the point that the test is not an absolute one. In considering it, the Secretary of State may have regard to the circumstances, such as
1150
the cost and availability of professional indemnity insurance, in deciding whether it is met.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
425 Page 204, line 34, leave out paragraph 15 and insert —
'Register of auditors and other information to be made available
15. The body must have rules requiring, persons eligible under its rules for appointment as a corr pany auditor to comply with any obligations imposed on them by regulations under section 33 or 34.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg 10 move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 425.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
426 Page 204, line 42, at end insert —
'Taking account of costs of compliance
15A. The body must have satisfactory arrangements for taking account, in framing its rules, of the cost to those to whom the rules would apply of complying with those rules and any other controls to which they are subject.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do o agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 426. This amendment requires a recognised supervisory body to have satisfactory arrangements for taking account of costs of compliance in its rules for any other controls to which its members are subject. An analogous requirement is placed by Amendment No. 306 upon recognised bodies under the FSA. Both amendments reflect the Government's concern that the proper assessment of the costs is made before a decision on rules are made.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, there is a difference between those governing the bodies which spend the majority of their time in business other than the investment business and the SROs which govern organisations which spend almost the totality of their time in the investment business. Therefore, I am much more doubtful about the costs of compliance argument in the case of recognised supervisory bodies than I am in the case of SROs. I am not tremendously persuaded by the argument in the case of SROs.
Perhaps I may take an example. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales being a recognised supervisory body, if a firm of accountants decides to go into the investment business, I see no reason whatever why the institute should have satisfactory arrangements for taking account, in framing its rules, of the cost to that firm of accountants of going into the investment business.

1151
I should have thought it perfectly ordinary and proper, if the firm wishes to go into the investment business, for it to assess what the costs of compliance are under the rules as set out by the institute and to decide whether or not, in the light of that assessment, it wishes to continue or go into that business at all. I find this provision much more objectionable than that in the case of SROs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is very fair in what he said. The Government believe that it is vital for regulatory bodies to pay proper regard to the direct and indirect costs of complying with the rules. It is all too easy, even for practitioner-based bodies, to decide upon an approach to a regulatory problem without having assessed the costs of the various alternatives. Unless costs are properly assessed, the regulatory system risks being more burdensome than necessary.
This amendment simply requires the bodies to have satisfactory arrangements for taking account of the costs of the rules and other controls. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is no possibility of this requirement undermining the other criteria which recognised supervisory bodies have to satisfy. That is because paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 states that the Secretary of State may not make a recognition order unless it appears to him that the requirements in Part II of the schedule are satisfied. Therefore, the body will not be able to excuse inadequate supervision on the grounds that it is too expensive to achieve. This new requirement is simply to ensure that the recognised supervisory body takes account of compliance costs in framing the rules and so satisfies the other requirements of the Bill in the most cost-effective way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
427 Schedule 9, page 205, line 14, at end, insert 'of this Act'.
428 Page 205, line 37, at end, insert 'of this Act'.
429 Page 205, line 38, after 'Part' insert 'of this Act'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 427, 428 and 429.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
430 Page 207, line 3, leave out from 'means' to end of line 10 and insert '—

(a) being educated to such a standard as would entitle him to be considered for such admission on the basis of—

(i) academic or professional qualifications obtained in the United Kingdom and recognised by the Secretary of State to be of an appropriate standard, or

1152

(ii) academic or professional qualifications obtained outside the United Kingdom which the Secretary of State considers to be of an equivalent standard; or

(b) being assessed on the basis of written tests of a kind appearing to the Secretary of State to be adequate for the purpose, with or without oral examination, as of such a standard of ability as would entitle him to be considered for such admission.

(3) The assessment, tests and oral examination referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) may be conducted by the qualifying body or by some other body approved by the Secretary of State.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 430. In rising to move that the House do agree with the Commons in that amendment I am conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his colleagues do not have any further amendments to Commons amendments. Will the noble Lord agree, therefore, that we can take a large number of the amendments en bloc? I am happy to go through them one by one or agree groupings if the noble Lord prefers; but if he does not have any further questions the time of the House may be saved if I can move them further en bloc. Perhaps the noble Lord will indicate his wishes.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have some comments on the amendment the noble Lord has moved and some further comments on Amendment No. 431. We may have further comments as we go along. Until we hear the noble Lord's explanation on these amendments we do not know whether we shall have any serious comments. In general, we are anxious to get on with the business quickly, but we prefer to stick to the groupings as they are.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord in the Chair for the somewhat unusual procedure. I shall continue with Amendment No. 430. This amendment extends the meaning of university entrance level. The effect is that a recognised qualifying body may regard persons as having attained that level —and thus able to embark on the qualification —if the body or some other body approved by the Secretary of State has assessed them on the basis of written tests approved by the Secretary of State as being of a standard of ability which would entitle them to be considered for admission to a university or other similar establishment. This will extend the number of persons who can be considered for entry to a course leading to the qualification while maintaining the requirement in the directive that unless the prospective auditor has had certain periods of relevant professional experience he must attain university entrance level.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish to confine myself solely to the topic raised by the noble Lord, which is the concept of attaining university entrance level, and to make the observation that this is a Bill

1153
promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is rather strange to find that the concept of attaining university entrance level is defined within a Bill proposed by the Department of Trade and Industry with no reference to the Department of Education and Science.
I thought that attaining university entrance level was a well defined concept in this country. It consists, of certain rules concerning A-levels or other matters relating to what universities themselves regard as acceptable for entry. I am not opposing an interest on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry on what is to be regarded as attaining university entry level, but I am slightly taken aback by sub-paragraph (b) because the only references within these written tests, with or without oral examination, are still to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I must ask the noble Lord whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has consulted his right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science on intervening or interfering in areas which many of us would have thought were none of his business. I am not saying that that is a bad thing. It is always a pleasure when the Department of Trade and Industry takes an interest in the subject of education, but I have to put on record the fact that it is slightly odd.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government are a broad catholic church and have taken all the necessary views into account. The problem is one of mature students who are sometimes admitted to universities without development A-levels but on the basis of a test conducted by the university at the time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is my point. As a university person myself I am well aware of the existence of mature students. At the very least I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will therefore consult universities which have had a lot of experience in dealing with mature students. My reason for intervening was precisely to draw that to the attention of the Minister. I am well aware of the reason for the amendment, but I also hope he is aware that there is a vast experience within the university and polytechnic worlds of dealing with these matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
431 Page 208, line 6, leave out from 'which' to end of line 7 and insert '—

(a) part was spent being trained in company audit work, and

(b) a substantial part was spent being trained in company audit work or other audit work of a description approved by the Secretary of State as being similar to company audit work.

For this purpose "company audit work" includes the work of a person appointed as auditor under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom where it appears to the Secretary of State that the law and practice with respect to the audit of company accounts is similar to that in the United Kingdom.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 431. This amendment concerns the content of the practical training which auditors must undergo. The amendment substitutes that a part must be spent on company audit work and a substantial part on such work or other work approved by the Secretary of State as being similar to company audit work.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am puzzled by the expression "similar to company audit work". Does that include training in consultancy, which many auditing firms engage in? We have had a number of arguments about whether they should be engaging in consultancy work and whether fees should be shown separately. Parts of the Bill cover that.
What is an activity similar to company audit work? By what criteria will the Secretary of State approve these activities as being similar? Perhaps the noble Lord can help me on that point.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, let me explain. The amendment meets a concern expressed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. It represented that in some offices there would be a concentration of audit work other than company audit work —the auditing of building societies, for example —and that that could count towards the requirement in the Bill. We have sought to meet that concern. We believe the directive permits us to do so as it refers to the auditing of similar financial statements. The amendment therefore provides that a substantial part of the training must be spent on company audit work or other audit work which is approved by the Secretary of State as being similar.
In order to ensure that auditors are properly trained to carry out company audits, the amendment also requires that part of the training is spent on company audit work whether in the UK or under a jurisdiction where the law and practices of company auditing are similar.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can enlighten me on this question of consultancy. Does this mean that people can be trained in consultancy as well as audit work for part of their time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can broadly say that the training in work is similar to company audit work, but management consultancy is not envisaged as being acceptable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
432 Page 208, line 15, after 'Part', insert 'of this Act'.
433 Schedule 10, page 208, line 33, at end insert 'under section 44; and any power to make provision by order is to make provision by order under that section.'.
434 Page 208, line 44, leave out 'delegation order may make provision' and insert 'Secretary of State may make provision by order'.
435 Page 209, line 2, leave out paragraph 4 and insert —
'4. —(1) The body shall pay to its chairman and members such remuneration, and such allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred by them in the performance of their duties, as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) As regards any chairman or member in whose case the Secretary of State so determines, the body shall pay or make provision for the payment of —

(a) such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of that person on his retirement or death, or

(b) such contributions or other payment towards the provision of such a pension, allowance or gratuity,

as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the body otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the body shall make a payment to him by way of compensation of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.'.
436 Page 209, line 31, leave out 'by virtue of the delegation order'.
437 Page 209, line 32, leave out 'agency' and insert 'body'.
438 Page 209, line 40, leave out 'designated'.
439 Page 209, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
440 Page 210, line 7, leave out from first 'The' to 'thinks' in line 8 and insert 'Secretary of State may by order impose such requirements as he'.
441 Page 210, line 30, after second 'the', insert 'delegation'.
442 Page 210, line 32, leave out 'order may' and insert 'Secretary of State may by order'.
443 Page 210, line 41, leave out paragraph 11 and insert —
'11. —(1) The transfer of a function to a body established by a delegation order does not affect anything previously done in the exercise of the function transferred; and the resumption of a function so transferred does not affect anything previously done in exercise of the function resumed.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional and other supplementary provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in relation to the transfer or resumption of a function.
(3) The provision that may be made in connection with the transfer of a function includes, in particular, provision —

(a) for modifying or excluding any provision of this Part of this Act in its application to the function transferred;

(b) for applying to the body established by the delegation order, in connection with the function transferred, any provision applying to the Secretary of State which is contained in or made under any other enactment;

(c) for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities from the Secretary of State to that body;

(d) for the carrying on and completion by that body of anything in process of being done by the Secretary of State when the order takes effect;

(e) for the substitution of that body for the Secretary of State in any instrument, contract or legal proceedings.

(4) The provision that may be made in connection with the resumption of a function includes, in particular, provision —

(a) for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities from that body to the Secretary of State;

(b) for the carrying on and completion by the Secretary of State of anything in process of being done by that body when the order takes effect;

(c) for the substitution of the Secretary of State for that body in any instrument, contract or legal proceedings.

12. Where a delegation order is revoked, the Secretary of State may by order make provision—
1156

(a)for the payment of compensation to persons ceasing to be employed by the body established by the delegation order; and

(b) as to the winding up and dissolution of the body.'.

5.15.p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 432 to 443.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
444 Schedule 11, page 213, line 6, leave out from 'matter' to end of line and insert 'in connection with his functions under paragraph 1 or 3.'.
445 Page 213, line 12, leave out 'carrying on any business'.
446 Page 213, line 21, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.
447 Page 213, line 23, at end insert 'but as if, in subsection (7) of that section, for the words from "any one" to "the Commission" there were substituted "the Director".'
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 444 to 447.
These amendments extend the purposes for which the Director General of Fair Trading may exercise his investigatory powers under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. As the Bill left your Lordships' House, the director could exercise the powers for the purpose of investigating any matter with a view to its consideration under paragraph 3 of Schedule 11. That paragraph requires the director to keep the rules and guidance of recognised bodies under review, and to report to the Secretary of State if he thinks they have or are likely or intended to have a significantly anti-competitive effect. But this is too narrow.
Paragraph 1 of the schedule requires the director to consider and report on the effect on competition of the rules and guidance of applicants when they apply for recognition, and the powers of investigation would be equally useful to him then. The amendments would therefore enable the director to exercise the investigatory powers for the purpose of investigating any matter in connection with his functions under paragraphs 1 or 3 of the schedule.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
448 Page 213, line 40, at end, insert 'of this Act'.
449 Page 215, line 12, leave out from 'it' to end of line and insert 'relates to rules of or guidance issued by the body, and incidental matters connected therewith, including any term deemed to be contained in it by virtue of section 8(2) or 16(3) of that Act.'.
450 Schedule 12, leave out Schedule 12.
451 After Schedule 12, insert the following new schedule
'CHARGES NO PROPERTY OF OVERSEA COMPANIES
The following provisions are inserted in Part XXIII of the Companies Act 1985—

REGISTRATION OF CHARGES
703A.(1) The provisions of this Chapter have effect for securing the registration in Great Britain of charges on the property of a registered oversea company.
(2) Section 395(2) and (3) (meaning of "charge" and "property") have effect for the purposes of this Chapter.
(3) A "registered oversea company", in relation to England and Wales or Scotland, means an oversea company which has duly delivered documents to the registrar for that part of Great Britain under section 691 and has not subsequently given notice to him under section 696(4) that it has ceased to have an established place of business in that part.
(4) References in this Chapter to the registrar shall be construed in accordance with section 703E below and references to registration, in relation to a charge, are to registration in the register kept by him under this Chapter.
Charges requiring registration.
703B.—(1) The charges requiring registration under this Chapter are those which if created by a company registered in Great Britain would require registration under Part XII of this Act.
(2) Whether a charge is one requiring registration under this Chapter shall be determined—

(a) in the case of a charge over property of a company at the date it delivers documents for registration under section 691, as at that date,

(b) in the case of a charge created by a registered oversea company, as at the date the charge is created, and

(c) in the case of a charge over property acquired by a registered oversea company, as at the date of the acquisition.

(3) In the following provisions of this Chapter references to a charge are, unless the context otherwise requires, to a charge requiring registration under this Chapter.
Where a charge not otherwise requiring registration relates to property by virtue of which it requires to be registered and to other property, the references are to the charge so far as it relates to property of the former description.
The register.
703C.—(1) The registrar shall keep for each registered oversea company a register, in such form as he thinks fit, of charges on property of the company.
(2) The register shall consist of a file containing with respect to each such charge the particulars and other information delivered to the registrar under or by virtue of the following provisions of this Chapter.
(3) Section 397(3) to (5) (registrar's certificate as to date of delivery of particulars) applies in relation to the delivery of any particulars or other information under this Chapter.
Company's duty to deliver particulars of charges for registration.
703D.—(1) If when an oversea company delivers documents for registration under section 691 any of its property is situated in Great Britain and subject to a charge, it is the company's duty at the same time to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration.
(2) Where a registered oversea company—

(a) creates a charge on property situated in Great Britain, or

(b) acquires property which is situated in Great Britain and subject to a charge,

it is the company's duty to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the
1158
registrar for registration within 21 days after the date of the charge's creation or, as the case may be, the date of the acquisition.
This subsection does not apply if the property subject to the charge is at the end of that period no longer situated in Great Britain.
(3) Where the preceding subsections do not apply and property of a registered oversea company is for a continuous period of four months situated in Great Britain and subject to a charge, it is the company's duty before the end of that period to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration.
(4) Particulars of a charge required to be delivered under subsections (1), (2) or (3) may be delivered for registration by any person interested in the charge.
(5) If a company fails to comply with subsection (1), (2) or (3), then, unless particulars of the charge have been delivered for registration by another person, the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.
(6) Section 398(2), (4) and (5) (recovery of fees paid in connection with registration, filing of particulars in register and sending of copy of particulars filed and note as to date) apply in relation to particulars delivered under this Chapter.
Registrar to whom particulars, &c. to be delivered
703E.—(1) The particulars required to be delivered by section 703D(1) (charges over property of oversea company becoming registered in a part of Great Britain) shall be delivered to the registrar to whom the documents are delivered under section 691.
(2) The particulars required to be delivered by section 703D(2) or (3) (charges over property of registered oversea company) shall be delivered —

(a) if the company is registered in one part of Great Britain and not in the other, to the registrar for the part in which it is registered, and

(b) if the company is registered in both parts of Great Britain but the property subject to the charge is situated in one part of Great Britain only, to the registrar for that part;

and in any other case the particulars shall be delivered to the registrars for both parts of Great Britain.
(3) Other documents required or authorised by virtue of this Chapter to be delivered to the registrar shall be delivered to the registrar or registrars to whom particulars of the charge to which they relate have been, or ought to have been, delivered.
(4) If a company gives notice under section 696(4) that it has ceased to have an established place of business in either part of Great Britain, charges over property of the company shall cease to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter, as regards registration in that part of Great Britain, as from the date on which notice is so given.
This is without prejudice to rights arising by reason of events occurring before that date.
Effect of failure to deliver particulars, law delivery and effect of errors and omissions
703F.—(1) The following provisions of Part XII—

(a) section 399 (effect of failure to deliver particulars),

(b) section 400 (late delivery of particulars), and

(c) section 402 (effect of errors and omissions in particulars delivered),

apply, with the following modifications, in relation to a charge created by a registered oversea company of which particulars are required to be delivered under this Chapter.
(2) Those provisions do not apply to a charge of which particulars are required to be delivered under section 703D(1) (charges existing when coin pany delivers documents under section 691).
(3) In relation to a charge of which particulars are required to be delivered under section 703D(3) (charges registrable by virtue of property being within Great Britain for requisite period), the references to the period

1159
of 21 days after the charge's creation shall be construed as references to the period of four months referred to in that subsection.
Delivery of further particulars or memorandum
703G. Sections 401 and 403 (delivery of further particulars and memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property) apply in relation to a charge of which particulars have been delivered under this Chapter.
Further provisions with respect to voidness of charges
703.—(1) The following provisions of Part XII apply in relation to the voidness of a charge by virtue of thisChapter—

(a) section 404 (exclusion of voidness as against unregistered charges),

(b) section 405 (restrictions on cases in which charge is void),

(c) section 406 (effect of exercise of power of sale), and

(d) section 407 (effect of voidness on obligation secured).

(2) In relation to a charge of which particulars are required to be delivered under section 7O3D(3) (charges registrable by virtue of property being within Great Britain for requisite period), the reference in section 404 to the period of 21 days after the charge's creation shall be construed as references to the period of four months referred to in that subsection.
Additional information to be registered.
7031.—(1) Section 408 (particulars of taking up of issue of debentures) applies in relation to a charge of which particulars have been delivered under this Chapter.
(2) Section 409 (notice of appointment of receiver or manager) applies in relation to the appointment of a receiver or manager of property of a registered oversea company.
(3) Regulations under section 410 (notice of crystallisation of floating charge, &c.) may apply in relation to a charge of which particulars have been delivered under this Chapter; but subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
Copies of instruments and register to be kept by company.
703J-—(1) Sections 411 and 412 (copies of instruments and register to be kept by company) apply in relation to a registered oversea company and any charge over property of the company situated in Great Britain.
(2) They apply to any charge, whether or not particulars are required to be delivered to the registrar.
(3) In relation to such a company the references to the company's registered office shall be construed as references to its principal place of business in Great Britain.
Power to make further provision by regulations.
703K.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the application of the provisions of this Chapter, or the provisions of Part XII applied by this Chapter, in relation to charges of any description specified in the regulations.
(2) The regulations may apply any provisions of regulations made under section 413 (power to make further provision with respect to application of Part XII) or make any provision which may be made under that section with respect to the application of provisions of Part XII.
Provisions as to situation of property.
703L.—(1) The following provisions apply for determining for the purposes of this Chapter whether a vehicle which is the property of an oversea company is situated in Great Britain—

(a) a ship, aircraft or hovercraft shall be regarded as situated in Great Britain if, and only if, it is registered in Great Britain;

1160

(b) any other description of vehicle shall be regarded as situated in Great Britain on a day if, and only if, at any time on that day the management of the vehicle is directed from a place of business of the company in Great Britain;

and for the purposes of this Chapter a vehicle shall not be regarded as situated in one part of Great Britain only.
(2) For the purposes of this Chapter as it applies to a charge on future property, the subject—matter of the charge shall be treated as situated in Great Britain unless it relates exclusively to property of a kind which cannot, after being acquired or coming into existence, be situated in Great Britain; and references to property situated in a part of Great Britain shall be similarly construed.
Other supplementary provisions.
703M. The following provisions of Part XII apply for the purposes of this Chapter—

(a) section 414 (construction of references to date of creation of charge),

(b) section 415 (prescribed particulars and related expressions),

(c) section 416 (notice of matters disclosed on the register),

(d) section 417 (power of court to dispense with signature),

(e) section 418 (regulations) and

(f) section 419 (minor definitions).

Index of defined expressions
703N. The following Table shows the provisions of this Chapter and Part XII defining or otherwise explaining expressions used in this Chapter (other than expressions used only in the same section)—

charge

sections 703A(2), 703B(3) and 395(2)

charge requiring registration

sections 703B(1) and 396

creation of charge

sections 703M(f) and 419(2)

date of acquisition (of property by a company)

sections 703M(f) and 419(3)

date of creation of charge

sections 703M(a) and 414

property

sections 703A(2) and 395(2)

registered oversea company

section 703A(3)

registrar and registration in relation to a charge situated in Great Britain

sections 703A(4) and 703E

in relation to vehicles

section 703L(1)

in relation to future property

section 703L(2)".

452 Insert the following new schedule:

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART IV
Land Charges Act 1972 (c.61)
1.—(1) Section 3 of the Land Charges Act 1972 (registration of land charges) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7) (registration in companies charges register to have same effect as registration under that Act), for "any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (8) below" substitute "Part XII, or Chapter III of Part XXIII, of the Companies Act 1985 (or corresponding earlier enactments)".
(3) In subsection (8) for "The enactments" substitute "The corresponding earlier enactments" and at the end insert "as originally enacted".
Companies Act 1985 (c.6)
2.—(1) Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences) is amended as follows.
(2) For the entries relating to sections 399(3) to 423(3) (offences under Part XII: registration of charges) substitute—

"398(3)

Company failing to deliver particulars of charge to registrar.

1. On indictment.

A fine.

2. Summary.

The statutory maximum.

408(3)

Company failing to deliver particulars of taking up of issue of debentures

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum

409(4)

Failure to give notice to registrar of appointment of receiver or manager, or of his ceasing to act.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.

410(4)

Failure to comply with requirements of regulations under s.410.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum.

411(4)

Failure to keep copies of charging instruments or register at registered office.

1. On indictment 2. Summary.

A fine. The statutory maximum.

412(4)

Refusing inspection of charging instrument or register or failing to supply copies.

Summary.

One-fifth of the statutory maximum."

(3) After the entry relating to section 703(1)insert—

703D(5)

Oversea company failing to deliver particulars of charge to registrar

1. On indictment

A fine

2. Summary

The statutory maximum."

Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)
3.—(1) The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 9(3) (restrictions on making administration order where administrative receiver has been appointed), in paragraph (b) (exceptions) insert—
"(i) be void against the administrator to any extent by virtue of the provisions of Part XII of the Companies Act 1985 (registration of company charges),";
and renumber the existing sub-paragraphs as (ii) to (iv).
(3) In sections 45(5), 53(2), 54(3) and 62(5) (offences of failing to deliver documents relating to appointment or cessation of appointment of receiver) omit the words "and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine".
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c.46)
4. In Schedule 1 to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (matters relevant to determining unfitness of directors), in paragraph 4 (failure of company to comply with certain provisions), for sub-paragraph (h) substitute—
"(h) sections 398 and 703D (duty of company to deliver particulars of charges on its property)."
453 Insert the following new schedule:
COMPANY CONTRACTS, SEALS, &C.: FURTHER PROVISIONS
Execution of deeds abroad
1.—(1) Section 38 of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of deeds abroad) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (appointment of attorney to execute deeds), after "A company may" insert "under the law of England and Wales".
(2) For subsection (2) (effect of deed executed by attorney) substitute—
"(2) A deed executed by such an attorney on behalf of the company has the same effect as if it were executed under the company's common seal.".
Official seal for use abroad
2.—(1) Section 39 of the Companies Act 1985 (power to have official seal for use abroad) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the common seal of the company" substitute "its common seal".
(3) For subsection (2) (effect of sealing with official seal) substitute—
"(2) The official seal when duly affixed to a document has the same effect as the company's common seal.".
(4) In subsection (3) (instrument authorising person to affix official seal), after "by writing under its common seal" insert "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B,".
Officcial seal for share certificates, &c.
3.—(1) Section 40 of the Companies Act 1985 (official seal for share certificates, &c.) is amended as follows.
(2) After "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the company's common seal" substitute "its common seal".
(3) At the end add—
"The official seal when duly affixed to a document has the same effect as the company's common seal.".
Authentication of documents
4. In section 41 of the Companies Act 1985 (authentication of documents), for the words from "may be signed" to the end substitute "is sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of the law of England and Wales by the signature of a director, sec-etary or other authorised officer of the company.".
Share certificate as evidence of Title
5. For section 186 of the Companies Act 1985 (certificate to be evidence of title) substitute—
"Certificate to be evidence of tile.
186.—(1) A certificate under the common seal of the company (or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B) specifying any shares held by a member is—

(a) in England and Wales, prima facie evidence, and

(b) in Scotland, sufficient evidence unless the contrary is shown,

of his title to the shares.".
Share warrants to bearer
6. For section 188 of the Companies Act 1985 (issue and effect of share warrant to bearer) substitute—
"Issue and effect of share warrant to bearer.
188.—(1) A company limited by shares may, if so authorised by its articles, issue with respect to any fully paid shares a warrant (a "share warrant") stating that the bearer of the warrant is entitled to the shares specified in it.
(2) A share warrant issued under the company's common seal (or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B) entitles the bearer to the shares specified in it; and the shares may be transferred by delivery of the warrant.
(3) A company which issues a share warrant may, if so authorised by its articles, provide (by coupons or otherwise) for the payment of the future dividends on the shares included in the warrant.".
Identification of company on common seal
7. In section 350 of the Companies Act 1985 (identification of company on company seal), for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) A company which has a common seal shall have its name engraved in legible characters on the seal; and if it fails to comply with this subsection it is liable to a fine.".
Floating charges under Scots law
In section 462 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of company to create floating charge), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
"(2) In the case of a company which the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up, a floating charge may be created only by a written instrument which is presumed under section 36B to be subscribed by the company.".
9. In section 466(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of instrument altering floating charge)—

(a) at the beginning of the subsection insert "Without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law regarding the execution of documents.";

(b) omit paragraph (a);

(c) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ";or", and

(d) omit paragraph (d) and the word "or" preceding it.

10. In section 53(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (execution of instrument appointing receiver), in paragraph (a) for "in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Companies Act as if it were a contract" substitute "in accordance with section 36B of the Companies Act 1985".'.
454 Schedule 13, page 225, line 8, leave out paragraph 32 and insert—
'32.—(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the operation of section 23 of the Companies Act 1985 (prohibition on subsidiary being a member of its holding company).
(2) In relation to times, circumstances and purposes before the commencement of section 115(1) of this Act, the references in section 23 to a subsidiary or holding company shall be construed in accordance with section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 as originally enacted.
(3) Where a body corporate becomes or ceases to be a subsidiary of a holding company by reason of section 115(1) coming into force, the prohibition in section 23 of the Companies Act 1985 shall apply (in the absence of exempting circumstances), or cease to apply, accordingly.'.
455 Schedule 14, page 226, line 38, at end insert—
'Correction of cross-reference
(0)A. In section 131(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (merger relief) for "section 132(4)" substitute "section 132(8)".
This amendment shall be deemed always to have had effect.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 448 to 455.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
456 Page 227, line I, leave out from 'directors' to end of line 2 and insert—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i) for "Christian name and surname" and in sub-paragraph (ii) for "Christian name or surname" substitute "name", and

(b) for sub-paragraph (vii) substitute—

"(vii) the date of his birth;".'.
457 Page 227, line 6, leave out '(1)' and insert '(1)(a)'.
458 Page 227, line 24, leave out '(twice)' and insert 'and "Christian name or surname" '.
459 Page 227, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—
'"(3) Section 289(2)(a) and (b) apply for the purposes of the obligation under subsection (1)(a) of this section to state the name or former name of an individual.".'.
460 Page 227, line 46, at end insert—
'3A.—(1) Section 686 of the Companies Act 1985 (documents to be delivered to registrar on registration of company not formed under companies legislation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (particulars to be delivered to registrar), for paragraph (b) (particulars of directors and managers) substitute—
"(b) a list showing with respect to each director or manager of the company —

(i) in the case of an individual, his name, address, occupation and date of birth,

(ii) in the case of a corporation or Scottish firm, its corporate or firm name and registered or principal office,".

(3) After that subsection insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) a person's 'name' means his Christian name (or other forename) and surname, except that in the case of a peer, or an individual usually known by a title, the title may be stated instead of his Christian name (or other forename) and surname or in addition to either or both of them.".
3B. In section 691 of the Companies Act 1985 (documents to be delivered to registrar on registration of oversea company), for subsection (2) (particulars of directors and secretary) substitute—
1164
"(2) The list referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) shall contain the following particulars with respect to each director—

(a) in the case of an individual—

(i) his name,

(ii) any former name,

(iii) his usual residential address,

(iv) his nationality,

(v) his business occupation (if any),

(vi) if he has no business occupation but holds other directorships, particulars of them, and

(vii) his date of birth;

(b) in the case of a corporation or Scottish firm, its corporate or firm name and registered or principal office.

(3) The list referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) shall contain the following particulars with respect to the secretary (or, where there are joint secretaries, with respect to each of them)—

(a) in the case of an individual, his name, any former name and his usual residential address;

(b) in the case of a corporation or Scottish firm, its corporate or firm name and registered or principal office.

Where all the partners in a firm are joint secretaries of the company, the name and principal office of the firm may be stated instead of the particulars required by paragraph (a).
(4) In subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) above—

(a) 'name" means a person's Christian name (or other forename) and surname, except that in the case of a peer, or an individual usually known by a title, the title may be stated instead of his Christian name (or other forename) and surname, or in addition to either or both of them; and

(b) the reference to a former name does not include—

(i) in the case of a peer, or an individual normally known by a British title, the name by which he was known previous to the adoption of or succession to the title, or

(ii) in the case of any person, a former name which was changed or disused before he attained the age of 18 years or which has been changed or disused for 20 years or more, or

(iii) in the case of a married woman, the name by which she was known previous to the marriage.".'.

461 Page 227, line 49, after `directors)' insert '—(a)'.
462 Page 227, line 50, at end insert '; and
(b) For the words from "and, in the case" to the end substitute "and his date of birth".'.
463 Page 228, line 3, leave out '3(a)' and insert '3(1)(a)'.
464 Page 228, line 6, leave out '1 and 3' and insert '1(a) and 3(1)(a)'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 456 to 464. The principal change which these amendments make is a new requirement to give the dates of birth of all directors —not just those of companies to which the age restrictions apply—in the register of directors, in a statutory notification to the registrar of a change of director and in the documents which must be sent to the registrar on incorporation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord said what the schedule does, but he did not tell us why it does it. Is it because it is perfectly obvious to all intelligent people why dates of birth are so relevant to the

1165
fundamentals of company law? In that case it is obvious to all intelligent people but one. I have not the faintest idea why dates of birth are relevant to this matter. I do not need an answer now, but I would like to know what is the significance of dates of birth in relation to company law.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is no insult to the noble Lord's intelligence. It is simply a matter of knowledge. If he knew the Bill slightly better he would realise that it already requires this information to be given in the annual return and Clause 109, new Section 364(1)(e)(i) applies. That information can be up to a year out of date. Hence we seek these changes as a helpful aid. It will also assist Companies House to prepare a database of company directors with greater accuracy.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I understand the Minister to be saying that, with their great interest in sociology, the Government want to provide appropriate databases for their sociologists who wish to investigate the company sector. However, he has still not told me why the information is relevant. He has simply said that the matter goes back even earlier in the Bill. Obviously, it is such an important matter that one could not possibly oppose it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
465 Page 228, line 20, at end insert—
'Transactions with directors not requiring authorization
4A. In section 321 of the Companies Act 1985 (exceptions from provisions requiring authorisation for substantial property transactions with directors, &c.), after subsection (3) insert—
"(4) Section 320(1) does not apply to a transaction on a recognised investment exchange which is effected by a director, or a person connected with him, through the agency of a person who in relation to the transaction acts as an independent broker.
For this purpose an "independent broker" means—

(a) in relation to a transaction on behalf of a director, a person who independently of the director selects the person with whom the transaction is to be effected, and

(b) in relation to a transaction on behalf of a person connected with a director, a person who independently of that person or the director selects the person with whom the transaction is to be effected;

and "recognised", in relation to an investment exchange, means recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree wth the Commons in their Amendment No. 465. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 467, 468 and 469. These amendments makes further minor changes to the 1985 Act which I shall explain if noble Lords require me to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
466 Page 229, line 6, at end insert—
'Delivery of documents by overseas companies
8A. In Chapter I of Part XXIII of the Companies Act 1985 (oversea companies: registration, &c.), for section 696 (office where documents to be filed) substitute—
"Registrar to whom documents to be delivered.
696.—(1) References to the registar in relation to an oversea company (except references n Chapter III of this Part (registration of charges): see section 703CC), shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) The documents which an oversea company is required to deliver to the registrar shall be delivered—

(a) to the registrar for England and Wales if the company has established a place of business in England and Wales, and

(b) to the registrar for Scotland if the company has established a place of business in Scotland;

and if the company has an established place of business in both parts of Great Britain, the documents shall be delivered to both registrars.
(3) If a company ceases to have a place of business in either part of Great Britain, it shall forthwith give notice of that fact to the registrar for that part; and from the date on which notice is so given it is no longer obliged to deliver documents to that registrar.'.'.
467 Page 229, line 32, at end insert—
'Exemptions from limit of 20 on members of partnership
9A.—(1) Section 716 of the Companies Act 1985 (prohibition of formation of company, association or partnership with more than 20 members unless registered as company, &c.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (exemptions), after paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) for any purpose prescribed by regulations (which may include a purpose mentioned above), of a partnership of a description so prescribed.";
and omit the words inserted by paragraph 22 of Schedule 16 to the Financial Services Act 1986.
(3) For subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
"(3) In subsection (2)(a) "solicitor"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means solicitor of the Supreme Court, and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a person enrolled or deemed enrolled as a solicitor in pursuance of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

(4) In subsection (2)(c) "recognised stock exchange" means—

(a) The International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Limited, and

(b) any other stock exchange for the time being recognised for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument."

9B.—(1) Section 717 of the Companies Act 1985 (limited partnerships: limit on number of members) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (exemptions from limit of 20 members under section 4(2) of Limited Partnerships Act 1907), after paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) to a partnership carrying on business of any description prescribed by regulations (which may include a business of any description mentioned above), of a partnership of a description so prescribed.";
and omit the words inserted by paragraph 22 of Schedule 16 to the Financial Services Act 1986.
(3) For subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
"(2) In subsection (1)(a) "solicitor"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means solicitor of the Supreme Court, and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a person enrolled or deemed enrolled as a solicitor in pursuance of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

(3) In subsection (1)(c) "recognised stock exchange" means—

(a) The International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Limited, and

(b) any other stock exchange for the time being recognised for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.".

Meaning of "officer who is in default"
9C. In section 730 of the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), in subsection (5) (meaning of "officer who is in default"), after "company" (twice) insert "or other body".
Offences committed by partnerships and other unincorporated bodies
9D. In section 734 of the Companies Act 1985 (criminal proceedings against unincorporated bodies), at the end add—
"(5) Where such an offence committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(6) Where such an offence committed by an unincorporated body (other than a partnership) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer of the body or any member of its governing body, he as well as the body is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.".'.
468 Page 229, line 38, at end, insert—
'Index of defined expressions
11. In Part XXVI of the Companies Act 1985 (interpretation), after section 744 insert—
"Index of defined expressions.
744A. The following Table shows provisions defining or otherwise explaining expressions for the purposes of this Act generally—

accounting reference date,

sections 224 and

accounting reference period

742(1)

acquisition (in relation to non-cash asset)

section 739(2)

agent

section 744

allotment (and related expressions

section 738

annual accounts

sections 261(2), 262(1) and 742(1)

annual general meeting

section 366

annual return

section 363

articles

section 744

authorised minimum

section 118

balance sheet and balance sheet date

sections 261(2), 262(1) and 742(1)

bank holiday

section 744

banking company

section 744

body corporate

section 740

books and papers, books or papers

section 744

called-up share capital

section 737(1)

capital redemption reserve

section 170(1)

the Companies Acts

section 744

companies charges register company

section 397

section 735(1)

the Consequential Provisions Act

section 744

corporation

section 740

the court (in relation to a company)

section 744

1168

current assets

sections 262(1) and 742(1)

debenture

section 744

director

section 741(1)

document

section 744

elective resolution

section 379A

employees' share scheme

section 743

equity share capital

section 744

existing company

section 735(1)

extraordinary general meeting

section 368

extraordinary resolution

section 378(1)

financial year (of a company)

sections 223 and 742(1)

fixed assets

sections 262(1) and 742(1)

floating charge (in Scotland)

section 462

the former Companies Acts

section 735(1)

the Gazette

section 744

hire-purchase agreement

section 744

holding company

section 736

the Insider Dealing Act

section 744

the Insolvency Act

section 735A(1)

insurance company

section 744

the Joint Stock Companies Acts

section 735(3)

limited company

section 1(2)

member (of a company)

section 22

memorandum (in relation to a company)

section 744

non-cash asset

section 739(1)

number (in relation to shares)

section 744

office copy (in relation to a court order in Scotland)

section 743A

officer (in relation to a body corporate)

section 744

official seal (in relation to the registrar of companies)

section 744

oversea company

section 744

overseas branch register

section 362

paid up (and related expressions)

section 738

parent company and parent undertaking

sections 257 and 742(1)

place of business

section 744

prescribed

section 744

private company

section 1(3)

profit and loss account

sections 261(2), 262(1) and 742(1)

prospectus

section 744

public company

section 1(3)

realised profits or losses

sections 262(2A) and 742(2)

registered number (of a company)

section 705(1)

registered office (of a company)

section 287

registrar and registrar of companies)

section 744

resolution for reducing share capital

section 135(3)

shadow director

section 741(2) and (3)

share

section 744

share premium account

section 130(1)

share warrant

section 188

special notice (in relation to a resolution)

section 379

special resolution

section 378(2)

subsidiary

section 736

1169

subsidiary undertaking

sections 257 and 742(1)

transfer (in relation to a non-cash asset)

section 739(2)

uncalled share capital

section 737(2)

undistributable reserves

section 264(3)

unlimited company

section 1(2)

unregistered company

section 718

wholly-owned subsidiary

section 736(6).".'.

469 Page 229, line 38, at end, insert—
`Fraudulent trading by unregistered companies.
12. In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), at the appropriate place insert—

"Part XVI

Fraudulent trading by a company.

—".'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 466 to 469.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. — (Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
470 Schedule 15, page 230, line 4, at end insert—
'(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any newspaper merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 470.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. — (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
471 Page 230, line 13, leave out '62(2)(a) of that Act' and insert '67 of that Act, in subsection (2)(a).'.
472 Page 230, line 19, at end insert —
'(2) In subsection (4) of that section —

(a) after "section 66" there is inserted "or subsection (1) of section 66A", and

(b) for "that subsection" there is substituted "either of those subsections".'

473 Page 230, line 33, leave out 'paragraph (a)' and insert 'paragraphs (a) and (b)'.
474 Page 230, line 42, at end insert —
`(b) in section 67(4) the references to subsection (1) of section 66 and subsection (1) of section 66A shall be construed as references to those subsections as modified in accordance with paragraph (a) or (aa), of this subsection;".'
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 471 to 474. The substantive amendment here is Amendment No. 472, which is consequential on the new Section 66A introduced into the Fair Trading Act under Clause 121 of the Bill and dealing with creeping acquisitions. Amendments Nos. 471, 473 and 474 all flow from Amendment No. 472.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
475 Page 230, line 42, at end insert —
'9A. Paragraphs 4 to 9 (and the repeals in Schedule 22 corresponding to paragraphs 7 and 8(a)) do not apply in relation to any merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.
476 Page 231, line 16, at end insert —
'(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any report made before the passing of this Act.'.
477 Page 232, line 2, at end insert —
'(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) (and the repeal in Schedule 17 corresponding to sub-paragraph (4)) do not apply in relation to any report made before the passing of this Act.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 475 to 477.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
478 Page 232, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert 'for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted —

"(a) in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) of any of the following sections —

(i) sections 56, 73 and 75K of this Act, and

(ii) section 10 of the Competition Act 1980, the Secretary of State makes, has made or has under consideration the making of, an order under the section in question exercising any of the powers specified in Schedule 8 to this Act, or

(b) in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) of section 12 of the Competition Act 1980 the Secretary of State makes, has made or has under consideration the making of, an order under subsection (5) of that section exercising any of those powers.".

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 478. This amendment allows interim orders to be made following adverse reports by the MMC under the Competition Act and provides for interim orders to be made where the Secretary of State has already made a principal order in respect of a report by the MMC under the Fair Trading Act or the Competition Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
479 Page 232, line 17, at end insert —
'(4) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) have effect in relation to the making of any order under section 89 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 after the passing of this Act, whether the principal order (within the meaning of that section) was made before or after that time.'.
480 Page 232, line 35, at end insert —
'(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any report made before the passing of this Act.'.
481 Page 233, line 12, at end insert —
'(2) This paragraph has effect in relation to the laying of any draft order under paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to the Fair Trading Act 1973 after the passing of this Act, whether the notice under that Schedule was published before or after that time.'.
482 Page 233, line 23, leave out 'commencement of paragraph 21 of Schedule 15 to' and insert 'passing of'.
483 Page 233, line 29, leave out 'commencment of paragraph 22 of Schedule 15 to' and insert 'passing of'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 479 to 483.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
484 Schedule 15, page 233, line 32, at end insert —
'22A. In section 29(1)(a) of that Act after "section" there is inserted "75G or".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 484. This amendment exempts undertakings given under the provisions of Clause 118 of the Bill from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
485 Schedule 15, page 233, line 40, at end insert —
'Financial Services Act 1986 (c.60)
24. In section 123(3) of the Financial Services Act 1986 —

(a) for "(5)" there is substituted "(6)", and

(b) at the end there is inserted "but as if, in subsection (7) of that section, for the words from 'any one' to 'the Commission' there were substituted 'the Director'".'.

486 Schedule 16, page 234, line 6, leave out paragraphs 1 to 4 and insert —
'1. —(1) The exchange must have default rules which, in the event of a member of the exchange appearing to be unable to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts, enable action to be taken in respect of unsettled market contracts to which he is party.
(2) The rules may authorise the taking of the same or similar action in relation to a member who appears to be likely to become unable to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts.
(3) The rules must enable action to be taken in respect of all unsettled market contracts, other than those entered into by a recognised clearing house for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of clearing services for the exchange.
(4) As regards contracts entered into by the exchange for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of its own clearing services, the rules must contain provision corresponding to that required by paragraphs 9 to 11 below in the case of a UK clearing house.
(5) As regards other contracts the rules must contain provision complying with paragraphs 2 and 3 below.
Content of rules
2. —(1) The rules must provide for all rights and liabilities between those party as principal to unsettled market contracts to which the defaulter is party as principal to be discharged and for there to be paid by one party to the other such sum of money (if any) as may be determined in accordance with the rules.
(2) The rules must further provide —

(a) for the sums so payable in respect of different contracts between the same parties to be aggregated or set off so as to produce a net sum, and

(b) for the certification by or on behalf of the exchange of the net sum payable or, as the case may be, of the fact that no sum is payable.

(3) The rules may make special provision with respect to, or exclude from the provisions required by sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), contracts of any description prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Notification to other parties affected
3. The exchange must have adequate arrangements for securing that —

(a) parties to unsettled market contracts with a defaulter acting as principal are notified as soon as reasonably practicable of the default and of any decision taken under the rules in relation to contracts to which they are a party; and

(b) parties to unsettled market contracts with a defaulter acting as agent and the defaulter's principals are notified as soon as reasonably practicable of the default and of the identity of the other party to the contract.

Application of default rules to designated non-members
4. —(1) The rules may make the same or similar provision in relation to designated non-members as in relation to members of the exchange.
(2) If such provision is made, the exchange must have adequate procedures —

(a) for designating the persons, or descriptions of persons, in respect of whom action may be taken,

(b) for keeping under review the question which persons or descriptions of persons should be or remain so designated, and

(c) for withdrawing such designation.

(3) The procedures shall be designed to secure that a person is not or does not remain designated if failure by him to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts would be unlikely adversely to affect the operation of the market, and that a description of persons is not or does not remain designated if failure by a person of that description to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts would be unlikely adversely to affect the operation of the market.
(4) The exchange must have adequate arrangements —

(a) for bringing a designation or withdrawal of designation to the attention of the persons or description of persons concerned, and

(b) where a description of persons is designated, or the designation of a description of persons is withdrawn, for ascertaining which persons fall within that description.'.

487 Page 235, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert —
'(1) The clearing house must have default rules which, in the event of a member of the clearing house appearing to be unable to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts, enable action to be taken to close out his position in relation to all unsettled market contracts to which he is a party.'.
488 Page 236, line 3, after `by' insert `or on behalf of'.
489 Page 236, line 7, after 'by' insert 'or on behalf of'.
490 Page 236, line 26, at end insert —
`(3) The reference in paragraph 9 to the rights and liabilities of a defaulter under or in respect of an unsettled market contract does not include, where he acts as agent, rights or liabilities of his arising out of the relationship of principle and agent.'.
491 Page 236, line 42, leave out paragraph 14 and insert —
'14. —(1) The rules of the clearing house must provide that, in the event of a default, margin provided by the defaulter for his own account is not to be applied to meet a shortfall on a client account.
(2) This is without prejudice to the requirements of any relevant regulations under section 55 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (clients' money).'.
492 Page 237, line 7, leave out paragraph 15 and insert —
'15. —(1) The rules and practices of the body, together with the law of the country in which the body's head office is situated, must be such as to provide adequate procedures for dealing with the default of persons party to market contracts connected with the body.
(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to default is to a person being unable to meet his obligations.'.
493 After Schedule 16, insert the following new Schedule—
'FINANCIAL MARKETS AND INSOLVENCY: PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRE-COMMENCEMENT CASES
Introductory
1. The provisions of this Schedule have effect for the purpose of safeguarding the operation of certain financial markets—

(a) in the event of the insolvency, winding-up or default of a person party to transactions in the market (paragraphs 2 to 8), and

(b) as regards the effectiveness or enforcement of certain charges given to secure obligations in connection with such transactions (paragraphs 9 to 12).

Recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses
2. —(1) This Schedule applies to the following descriptions of contract connected with a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
The contracts are referred to in this Schedule as "market contracts".
(2) In relation to a recognised investment exchange, this Schedule applies to —

(a) contracts entered into by a member or designated non-member of the exchange which are —

(i) made on or otherwise subject to the rules of the exchange,

(ii) on terms expressed to be as traded on the exchange, or

(iii) on the same terms as those on which an equivalent contract would be made on the exchange; and

(b) contracts subject to the rules of the exchange entered into by the exchange for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of clearing services.

A "designated non-member" means a person in respect of whom action may be taken under the default rules of the exchange but who is not a member of the exchange.
(3) In relation to a recognised clearing house, this Schedule applies to contracts subject to the rules of the clearing house entered into by the clearing house for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of clearing services for a recognised investment exchange.
This includes contracts effected under or in consequence of action taken by the clearing house under its default rules.
3. The general law of insolvency has effect in relation to market contracts, and action taken under the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house with respect to such contracts, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
4. —(1) None of the following shall be regarded as to any extent invalid at law on the ground of inconsistency with the law relating to the distribution of the assets of a person on bankruptcy, winding-up or sequestration, or in the administration of an insolvent estate —

(a) a market contract.

(b) the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house as to the settlement of market contracts,

1174

(c) the default rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.

(2) The powers of a relevant office-holder in his capacity as such, and the powers of the court under the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, shall not be exercised in such a way as to prevent or interfere with —

(a) the settlement of a market contract in accordance with the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house,

(b) any action taken under the default rules of such an exchange or clearing house.

(3) Nothing in the following provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as affecting the generality of sub-paragraph (2).
(4) A debt or other liability arising out of a market contract which is the subject of default proceedings may not be proved in a winding-up or bankruptcy, or in Scotland claimed in a winding-up or sequestration, until the completion of the default proceedings.
A debt or other liability which by virtue of this sub paragraph may not be proved or claimed shall not be taken into account for the purposes of any set-off until the completion of the default proceedings.
5. —(1) A liquidator or trustee of a defaulter shall not —

(a) declare or pay any dividend to the creditors, or

(b) return any capital to contributories,

unless he has retained what he reasonably considers to be an adequate reserve in respect of any claims arising as a result of the default proceedings of the exchange or clearing house concerned.
(2) Nothing in sections 11(3), 130 or 285 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which restrict the taking of certain legal proceedings and other steps), and nothing in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, shall affect any action taken by an exchange or clearing house for the purpose of its default proceedings.
6. —(1) The following provisions apply with respect to the net sum certified by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house, upon the completion of proceedings under its default rules, to be payable by or to a defaulter.
(2) If, in England and Wales, a bankruptcy or winding-up order has been made, or a resolution for voluntary winding-up has been passed, the debt —

(a) is provable in the bankruptcy or winding-up or, as the case may be, is payable to the relevant office-holder, and

(b) shall be taken into account, where appropriate, under section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (mutual dealings and set-off) or the corresponding provision applicable in the case of a winding-up,

in the same way as a debt due before the commencement of the bankruptcy or winding-up.
(3) If, in Scotland, an award of sequestration or a winding-up order has been made, or a resolution for voluntary winding-up has been passed, the debt —

(a) may be claimed in the sequestration or winding-up or, as the case may be, is payable to the relevant office-holder, and

(b) shall be taken into account for the purposes of any rule of law relating to compensation of set-off applicable in sequestration or winding-up,

in the same way as a debt due before the date of sequestration (within the meaning of section 73(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985) or the commencement of the winding-up.
7. —(1) Sections 178, 186, 315 and 345 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power to disclaim onerous property and court's power to order rescission of contract s, &c.) do not apply in relation to —

(a) a market contract or

(b) a contract effected by the exchange or clearing house for the purpose of realising property provided as margin in relation to market contracts.

In the application of this sub-paragraph in Scotland, the reference to sections 178 and 315 shall be construed as a reference to any rule of law having the like effect as those sections.
(2) Sections 127 and 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (avoidance of property dispositions effected after commencement of winding-up or presentation of bankruptcy petition) do not apply to —

(a) a market contract, or any disposition of property in pursuance of such a contract,

(b) the provision of margin in relation to market contracts,

(c) a contract effected by the exchange or clearing house for the purpose of realising property provided as margin in relation to a market contract, or any disposition of property in pursuance of such a contract, or

(d) any disposition of property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house as to the application of property provided as margin.

(3) However, if a person enters into a market contract knowing that a petition has been presented for the winding-up or bankruptcy of the other party to the contract, the value of any profit or benefit to him arising from the contract is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.
(4) Any sum recoverable by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) has the same priority, in the event of the insolvency of the person from whom it is due, as if it were secured by a fixed charge.
8. —(1) No order shall be made in relation to a market contract under —

(a) section 238 or 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions at an under-value),

(b) section 239 or 340 of that Act (preferences), or

(c) section 423 of that Act (transactions defrauding creditors),

unless the court is satisfied that the person in favour of whom the contract was made knew at the time he entered into it that it was at an under-value (within the meaning of the relevant provision) or, as the case may be, that a preference was being given.
(2) As respects Scotland, no decree shall be granted in relation to a market contract —

(a) under section 34 or 36 of the Bankrupty (Scotand) Act 1985 or section 242 or 343 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (gratuitous alienations and unfair preferences), or

(b) at common law,

unless the court is satisfied that the person with whom the contract was made knew at the time he entered into it that it was challengeable under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) or at common law.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) apply in relation to —

(a) a disposition of property in pursuance of a market contract,

(b) the provision of margin in relation to market contracts,

(c) a contract effected by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house for the purpose of realising property provided as margin, or

(b) a disposition of property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house as to the application of property provided as margin,

as they apply in relation to the making of a market contract.
Market charges
9. —(1) The charges to which paragraphs 10 to 12 apply are charges, whether fixed or floating, granted —

(a) in favour of a recognised investment exchange, for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with the settlement of market contracts,

(b) in favour of a recognised clearing house, for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with their ensuring the performance of market contracts, or

(c) in favour of a person who agrees to make payments as a result of the transfer of specified securities made through the medium of a computer-based system established by the Bank of England and The Stock
1176
Exchange, for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities of the transferee arising in connection with the payments.

Those charges are referred to in this Schedule as "market charges".
(2) Where a charge is granted partly for purposes specified in sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) and partly for other purposes, paragraphs 10 to 12 apply to it so far as it has effect for the specified purposes; and the expression "market charge" shall be construed accordingly.
(3) In this paragraph and paragraphs 10 to 12 —
"charge" means any form of security, including a mortgage and, in Scotland, a heritable security; and "specified securities" means securities for the time being specified in the list in Schedule Ito the Stock Transfer Act 1982, and includes any right to such securities.
10. The general law of insolvency has effect in relation to market charges and action taken in enforcing them subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
11. —(1) Sections 10(1)(b) and 11 (3)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (no enforcement of security while petition for administration order pending or order in force) do not apply to a market charge.
(2) 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.
(3) Section 15(1) and (2) of that Act (administrator's power to deal with charged property) do not apply to a market charge.
(4) Sections 127 and 284 of that Act (avoidance of property dispositions effected after commencement of winding up or presentation of bankrutpcy petition) do not apply to —

(a) 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, or

(b) any disposition of property made in enforcing a market charge.

(5) However, if a person (other than the chargee under the market charge) who is a party to a disposition mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(a) knows at the time of the disposition that a petition has been presented for the winding-up or bankruptcy of the party making the disposition, the value of any profit or benefit to him arising from the disposition is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.
(6) Any sum recoverable by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) has the same priority, in the event of the insolvency of the person from whom it is due, as if it were secured by a fixed charge.
12. —(1) No legal proceedings, execution or other legal process may be commenced or continued, and no distress may be levied against property which is, or becomes, subject to a market charge except with the consent of the person in whose favour the charge was granted or the leave of the court.
(2) The court may give leave subject to such terms as it thinks fit.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to proceedings to enforce any security over, or any equitable interest in, the property.
(4) Sections 10(1)(c), 11(3)(d), 130(3) and 285(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which restrict the taking of certain legal proceedings and other steps) have effect accordingly.
(5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, the reference to execution being commenced or continued includes a reference to diligence being carried out or continued, and the reference to distress being levied shall be omitted.
Supplementary provisions
13. —(1) In this Schedule 'default rules' means —

(a) in relation to a recognised investment exchange, rules which provide in the event of a member or designated non-member of the exchange appearing to be unable, or likely to become unable, to meet his obligations

1177
in respect of one or more market contracts, for the settlement forthwith of all unsettled market contracts to which he is a party as principal, other than those whose performance is ensured by a recognised clearing house;

(b) in relation to a recognised clearing house, rules which provide in the event of a member of the clearing house appearing to be unable, or likely to become unable, to meet his obligations in respect of any market contract, for the closing out of his position in relation to all market contracts to which he is a party.

(2) References in this Schedule to a "defaulter" are to a person in respect of whom action has been taken by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house under its default rules, whether by declaring him to be a defaulter or otherwise; and references in this Schedule to "default" shall be construed accordingly.
(3) In this Schedule "default proceedings" means proceedings taken by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house under its default rules.
14. —(1) The following are relevant office-holders for the purposes of this Schedule —

(a) the official receiver,

(b) any person acting in relation to a company as its liquidator, provisional liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver,

(c) any person in relation to an individual (or, in Scotland, a deceased debtor) as his trustee in bankruptcy or interim receiver of his property or as permanent or interim trusteee in the sequesteration of his estate,

(d) any person acting as administrator (or, in Scotland, as judical factor) of an insolvent estate of a deceased person.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(c) applies in relation to a partnership, and any debtor within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as it applies in relation to an individual.
(3) In this paragraph —
"administrative receiver" has the meaning given by section 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986;
"company" means a company within the meaning of section 735(1) of the Companies Act 1985 or a company which may be wound up under Part V of the Insolvency Act 1986 (unregistered companies); and
"interim trustee" and "permanent trustee" have the same meaning as in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
15. —(1)( In this Schedule—
"clearing house" has the same meaning as in the Financial Services Act 1986;
"investment" and "investment exchange" have the same meaning as in the Financial Services Act 1986;
"recognised" means recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986;
"The Stock Exchange" means The International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Limited.
(2) References in this Schedule to ensuring the performance of a transaction have the same meaning as in the Financial Services Act 1986.
(3) References in this Schedule to a market contract to which a person is a party include, unless the contrary intention appears, contracts to which he is party as agent'.
494 Insert the following new Schedule—
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986

GENERAL AMENDMENTS
1. —(1) Section 13 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (power to direct alteration of rules of recognised self-regulating organisation) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsection (1).
(3) For subsection (2) substitute —
"(2) If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that—

(a) a recognised self-regulating organisation is concerned with two or more kinds of investment business, and

(b) the requirement in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act is not satisfied in respect of investment business of one or more but not all of those kinds,

he may, instead of revoking the recognition order or making an application under section 12 above, direct the organisation to alter, or himself alter, its rules so that they preclude a member from carrying on investment business of a kind in respect of which that requirement is not satisfied, unless he is an author's:4 person otherwise than by virtue of membership of the organisation or is an exempted person in respect of that business.".
(4) For subsection (3) substitute —
"(3) 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.".
(5) Omit subsections (4) to (6).
2. —(1) Section 48 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (conduct of business rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) omit the words "members of a recognised self-regulating organisation or" and "organisation or".
(3) After subsection (10) insert —
"(11) Section 63A below (application of designated rules) has effect as regards the application of rules under this section to members of recognised self-regulating organisations in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of the organisation.".
3. —(1) Section 49 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (financial resources rules) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute —
"(1) The Secretary of State may make rules requiring —

(a) a person authorised to carry on investment business by virtue of section 25 or 31 above, or

(b) a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation carrying on investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the organisation,

to have and maintain in respect of that business such financial resources as are required by the rules.".
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
"(3) Section 63A below (application of designated rules) has effect as regards the application of rules under this section to members of recognised self-regulating organisations in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of the organisation.".
4, In section 50 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (power of Secretary of State to modify conduct of business and financial resources rules for particular cases), after subsection (3) insert—
"(4) The powers conferred by subsection (1) above shall not be exercised in a case where the powers conferred by section 63B below are exercisable (powers of recognised self-regulating organisation in relation to designated rules).".
5. In section 52 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (notification regulations), in subsection (3) (application to member of recognised self-regulating organisation or professional body), for "subject to any of the rules made under section 48 above" substitute "not subject to the rules of that organisation or body".
6. —(1) Section 55 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (clients' money) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) and (3) omit the words "a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation or" and "organisation or".
(3) In subsection (3) omit the words "organisation or".
(4) After subsection (5) insert —
"(6) Section 63A below (application of designated regulations) has effect as regards the application of regulations under this section to members of recognised self-regulating organisations in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of the organisation.".
7. In Section 56 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (unsolicited calls), for subsection (7) substitute —
"(7) Section 63A below (application of designated regulations) has effect as regards the application of regulations under this section to members of recognised self-regulating organisations in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of the organisation.
As it applies to such persons in respect of such business the reference in subsection (1) above to conduct permitted by regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be construed —

(a) where or to the extent that the regulations do not apply, as a reference to conduct permitted by the rules of the organisation; and

(b) where or to the extent that the regulations do apply but are expressed to have effect subject to the rules of the organisation, as a reference to conduct permitted by the regulations together with the rules of the organisation.

(7A) In the application of this section to anything done by a person certified by a recognised professional body in carrying on investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the body, the reference in subsection (1) above to conduct permitted by regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to conduct permitted by the rules of the body.".
8. In section 86 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (collective investment schemes constituted in other member States), in subsection (7) (restriction on application of conduct of business rules), at the end add—
"This subsection also applies to statements of principle under section 47A and codes of practice under section 63A so far as they relate to matters falling within the rule-making power in section 48.".
9. In section 95 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (collective investment schemes: contraventions), after subsection (2) add —
"(3) The disciplinary action which may be taken by virtue of section 47A(3) (failure to comply with statement of principle) includes —

(a) the giving of a direction under section 91(2), and

(b) the application by the Secretary of State for an order under section 93;

and subsection (6) of section 47A (duty of the Secretary of State as to exercise of powers) has effect accordingly.".
10. —(1) Section 107 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (appointment of auditors) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) (power to make rules) substitute—
"(1) The Secretary of State may make rules requiring —

(a) a person authorised to carry on investment business by virtue of section 25 or 31 above, or

(b) a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation carrying on investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the organisation,

and who, apart from the rules, is not required by or under any enactment to appoint an auditor, to appoint as an auditor a person satisfying such conditions as to qualifications and otherwise as may be specified in or imposed under the rules.".
(3) After subsection (3) add—
"(4) In its application to members of recognised self-regulating organisations, this section has effect subject to section 107A below.".
11. After section 107 of the Financial Services Act 1986 insert—
"Application of audit rules to members of self-regulating organisations
107A. —(1) The Secretary of State may in rules under section 107 designate provisions which apply, to such extent as may be specified, to a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which he is subject to the rules of the organisation.
(2) It may be provided that the designated rules have effect, generally or to such extent as may be specified subject to the rules of the organisation.
(3) A member of a recognised self-regulating organisation who contravenes a rule applying to him by virtue of that section shall be treated as having contravened the rules of the organisation.
(4) Except as mentioned above, rules made under section 107 do not apply to members of recognised self-regulating organisations in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of the organisation.
(5) A recognised self-regulating organisation may on the application of a member of the organisation —

(a) modify a rule designated under this section so as to adapt it to his circumstances or to any particular kind of business carried on by him, or

(b) dispense him from compliance with any such rule, generally or in relation to any particular kind of business carried on by him.

(6) The powers conferred by subsection (5) shall not b exercised unless it appears to the organisation —

(a) that compliance with the rule in question would be unduly burdensome for the applicant having regard to the benefit which compliance would confer on investors, and

(b) that the exercise of those powers will not result in any undue risk to investors.

(7) The powers conferred by subsection (5) may be exercised unconditionally or subject to conditions; and subsection (3) applies in the case of a contravention of a condition as in the case of contravention of a designated rule.
(8) The reference in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisations) to monitoring and enforcement of compliance with rules includes monitoring and enforcement of compliance with conditions imposed by the organisation under subsection (7).".
12. —(1) Section 114 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (power to transfer functions to designated agency) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (9) substitute —
"(9) The Secretary of State shall not make a delegation order transferring any legislative functions unless —

(a) the agency has furnished him with a copy of the instruments it proposes to issue or make in the exercise of those functions, and

(b) he is satisfied that those instruments will afford investors an adequate level of protection and, in the case of such provisions as are mentioned in Schedule 8 to this Act, comply with the principles set out in that Schedule.

In this section "legislative functions" means the functions of issuing or making statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice.".
(3) In subsection (12) for "rules or regulations made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice issued or made".
13. —(1) Section 115 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (resumption of transferred functions) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (5) substitute —
"(5) Where the transferred functions consist of or include any legislative functions, an order may be made

1181
under subsection (2) above it' at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the instruments issued or made by the agency do not satisfy the requirements of section 1 14(9)(b) above.".
(3) In subsection (7)—

(a) in the opening words, for "subsection (2)(b) above" substitute "this section", and

(b) in paragraph (a) for "functions of making rules or regulations" substitute "functions of issuing or making statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice.".

14. —(1) Section 119 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (competition scrutiny: recognition orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In susbection (1) (considerations relevant to making of recognition order), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute —

"(a) in the case of a self-regulating organisation, the rules and any guidance of which copies are furnished with the application for the order, together with any statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice to which members of the organisation would be subject by virtue of Chapter V of this Part,

(b) in the case of an investment exchange, the rules and any guidance of which copies are furnished with the application for the order, together with any arrangements of which particulars are furnished with the application,

(c) in the case of a clearing house, the rules and any guidance of which copies are furnished with the application for the order,".

(3) In subsection (2) (circumstances in which powers are exercisable in relation to recognised body), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute —

"(a) in the case of a self-regulating organisation,

(i) any rules made or guidance issued by the organisation,

(ii) any practices of the organisation, or

(iii) any practices of person who are members of, or otherwise subject to the rules made by, the organisation,

together with any statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice to which members of the organisation are subject by virtue of Chapter V of this Part,

(b) in the case of a recognised investment exchange—

(i) any rules made or guidance issued by the exchange,

(ii) any practices of the exchange, or

(iii) any practices of persons who are members of, or otherwise subject to the rules made by, the exchange,

(c) in the case of a recognised clearing house —

(i) any rules made or guidance issued by the clearing house,

(ii) any practices of the clearing house, or

(iii) any practices of persons who are members of, or otherwise subject to the rules made by, the clearing house,

or any clearing arrangements made by the clearing house,".

(4) In subsection (3) (powers exercisable in relation to recognised body)—

(a) in paragraph (b) for "the rules" substitute "its rules, or the", and

(b) in paragraph (c) for "the rules" substitute "its rules".

(5) In subsection (5) (construction of references to practices)—

(a) for "paragraph (b)" substitute "paragraph (a)(ii), (b)(ii) and (c)(ii)", and

(b) omit the words from "and the practices referred to in paragraph (c)" to the end.

(6) After that subsection insert —"
"(6) The practices referred to in paragraph (a)(iii), (b)(iii) and (c)(iii) of subsection (2) above are —
1182

(a) in relation to a recognised self-regulating organisation, practices in relation to business in respect of which the persons in question are subject to —

(i) the rules of the organisation, or

(ii) statements of principle, rules regulations or codes of practice to which its members are subject by virtue of Chapter V of this Part,

and which are required or contemplated by the rules of the organisation or by those statements, rules, regulations or codes, or by guidance issued by the organisation,

(b) in relation to a recognised investment exchange or clearing house, practices in relation to business in respect of which the persons in question are subject to the rules of the exchange or clearing house, and which are required or contemplated by its rules or guidance,

or which are otherwise attributable to the conduct of the organisation, exchange or clearing house as such.".
15. —(1) Section 121 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (competition scrutiny: designated agencies) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for "rules, regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations, codes of practice".
(3) In subsection (2)(a) and (c) for "rules or regulations made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes or practice issued or made".
(4) In subsection (3)(b) for "rules, regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations, codes of practice".
(5) In subsection (4) for "rules or regulations" (twice) substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes or practice".
16. —(1) Section 122 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (reports by Director General of Fair Trading) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for "and regulations" substitute ", statements of principle, regulations and codes of practice".
(3) In subsection (2) for "regulations," substitute "statements of principle, regulations, codes of practice".
(4) In subsection (4) —

(a) in paragraph (a) for "rules, guidance, arrangements and regulations" substitute "rules, statements of principle, regulations, codes of practice, guidance and arrangements", and

(b) in the words following the paragraphs, for "rules, guidance, arrangements, regulation" substitute "rules, statements of principle, regulations, codes of practice, guidance, arrangements", and for "rules, guidance arangements or regulations" substitute "rules, statements of principle, regulation, codes of practice, guidance or arrangements".

17. —(1) Section 124 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (matters to be left out of account for certain purposes in connection with competition scrutiny) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (matters to be left out of account in determining whether monopoly situation exists), in paragraph (c) for "rules or regulations made or guidance issued" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations, codes of practice or guidancs., issued or made".
(3) In subsection (3) (matters to be excluded from consideration where monopoly situation exists)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "rules or regulations made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice issued or made",

(b) in paragraph (b), for "rules or regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice", and

(c) in the closing words, for "rules, regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations, codes of practice".

18. For section 205 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (regulations, rules and orders) substitute—
"General power to make regulations
205. The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing anything which by this Act is authorised or required to be prescribed.
Supplementary provisions with respect to subordinate legislation
205A. —(1) The following provisions apply to any power of the Secretary of State under this Act —

(a) to issue statements of principle,

(b) to make rules or regulations,

(c) to make orders (other than such orders as are expected by subsection (4) below), or

(d) to issue codes of practice.

(2) Any such power is exercisable by statutory instrument and includes power to make different provision for different cases.
(3) Except as otherwise provided, a statutory instrument containing statements of principle, rules or regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) The above provisions do not apply to a recognition order, an order declaring a collective investment scheme to be an authorised unit trust scheme or a recognised scheme or to an order revoking any such order.".
19. In section 206(1) of the Financial Services Act 1986 (publication of information and advice)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "rules and regulation made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice issued or made", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "rules or regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice".

20. In Schedule 2 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisations), in paragraph 4(1) (monitoring and enforcement) for "rules or regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice".
21. In Schedule 3 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (requirements for recognition of professional bodies), in paragraph 4(2) (monitoring and enforcement) for "rules or regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice".
22. In Schedule 7 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (qualifications of designated agency), in paragraph 2(2) (arrangements for discharge of functions: matters to be decided upon by the governing body) for "rules or regulations must be made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice must be issued or made".
23. —(1) Schedule 8 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (principles applicable to designated agency's rules and regulations) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading for "RULES AND REGULATIONS" substitute "LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS".
(3) For paragraph 1, and the cross-heading preceding it, substitute—
"Introduction
1. —(1) In this Schedule "legislative provisions" means the provisions of statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice issued or made under Part I of this Act.
(2) References in this Schedule to "conduct of business provisions" are to rules made under section 48 of this Act and statements of principle and codes of practice so far as they relate to matters falling within that rule-making power.
(3) References in this Schedule to provisions made for the purposes of a specified section or Chapter are to rules or regulations made under that section or Chapter and statements of principle and codes of practice so far as they relate to matters falling within that power to make rules or regulations.
Standards
1A. The conduct of business provisions and the other legislative provisions must promote high standards of
1184
integrity and fair dealing in the conduct of investment business.".
(4) In paragraphs 2 to 7, 9, 11 and 12 for "conduct of business rules" substitute "conduct of business provisions".
(5) In paragraph 7 for "those rules and rules under" substitute "those provisions and provisions made for the purposes of".
(6) In paragraph 8 for "Rules made under" substitute "provisions made for the purposes of".
(7) In paragraph 9 for "regulations made under" substitute "provisions made for the purposes of".
(8) In paragraph 10 for "Rules made under" substitute "Provisions made for the purposes of and for "under those sections" substitute "for the purposes of those sections".
(9) In paragraph 12 for "rules and regulations made under" substitute "provisions made for the purposes of".
24. —(1) Schedule 9 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (designated agency: exercise of transferred functions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4(1) (copies of instruments to be sent to Secretary of State), for "any rules or regulations made" substitute "any statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice issued or made".
(3) For paragraphs 5 and 6 substitute —
"5. Paragraphs 6 to 9 below have effect instead of section 205A of this Act in relation to statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice issued or made by a designated agency in the exercise of powers transferred to it by a delegation order.
6. Any such power is exercisable by instrument in writing and includes power to make different provision for different cases.".
(4) In paragraph 8 (instruments to be printed and made available to public) —

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for "is made" substitute "is issued or made", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) for "rules or regulation" (twice) substitute "statement of principle, rule, regulation or code of practice".

(5) In paragraph 9 (proof of instruments), for "made by the agency" (twice) substitute "made or issued by the agency".
(6) For paragraph 12 (consultation) substitute—
"12. —(1) Where a designated agency proposes, in the exercise of powers transferred to it by a delegation order, to issue or make any statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice, it shall publish the proposed instrument in such manner as appears to it best calculated to bring the proposals to the attention of the public, together with a statement that representations about the proposals (and, in particular, representations as to the cost of complying with the proposed provisions) can be made to the agency within a specified time.
(2) Before issuing or making the instrument the agency shall have regard to any representations duly made in accordance with that statement.
(3) The above requirements do not apply —

(a) where the agency considers that the delay involved in complying with them would be prejudicial to the interests of investors;

(b) to the issuing or making of an instrument in the same, or substantially the same, terms as a proposed instrument which was furnished by the agency to the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 114(9) of this Act.".

25. —(1) Schedule 10 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (application of investment business provisions to regulated insurance companies) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4 (modification of conduct of business rules), after sub-paragraph (2) insert —
"(2A) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) also apply to statements of principle under section 47A and codes of practice under section 63A so far as they relate to matters falling within the rule-making power in section 48.".
(3) In paragraph 7 (withdrawal of authorisation) after sub-paragraph (2) insert —
"(3) The disciplinary action which may be taken by virtue of section 47A(3) of this Act (failure to comply with statement of principle) includes —

(a) the withdrawal of authorisation under section 11(2)(a) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, and

(b) the giving of a direction under section 13(2A) of that Act;

and subsection (6) of section 47A (duty of the Secretary of State as to exercise of powers) has effect accordingly.".

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
26. Schedule 11 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (friendly societies) is amended as follows.
27. In paragraph 3(2) (competition scrutiny: recognition of self-regulating organisation for friendly societies), after "sent to him under this sub-paragraph" insert ", together with any statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice to which members of the organisation would be subject by virtue of this Schedule,".
28. —(1) In paragraph 4 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisation for friendly societies) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (4) —

(a) in paragraph (a) for "22" substitute "22C", and

(b) omit paragraph (b).

(3) sub-paragraph (5) for "22" substitute "22C".
29. Omit paragraph 7.
30. —(1) Paragraph 10 (competition scrutiny: circumstances in which powers are exercisable in relation to recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (c) insert "together with any statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice to which members of the organisation are subject by virtue of this Schedule,".
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) —
(a) in paragraph (b), for "the rules' substitute "its rules, or the", and
(c) in paragraph (c), for "the rules" substitute 'is rules".
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) (construction of references to practices), omit the words from "and the practices referred to in paragraph (c)" to the end; and after that sub-paragraph insert —
"(3A) The practices referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (1) above are practices in relation to business in respect of which the persons in question are subject to —

(a) the rules of the organisation, or

(b) statements of principle, rules regulations or codes of practice to which its members are subject by virtue of this Schedule,

and which are required or contempleted by the rules of the organisation or by those statements, rules, regulations of codes, or by guidance issued by the organisation, or which are otherwise attributable to the conduct of the organisation as such.".
31. In paragraph 13, for "Paragraphs 14 to 25" substitute "Paragraphs 13A to 25".
32. Before paragraph 14 and after the heading "Conduct of investment business", insert —
"13A. —(1) The Registrar may issue statements of principle with respect to the conduct expected of regulated friendly societies.
(2) The conduct expected may include compliance with a code or standard issued by another person, as for the time being in force, and may allow for the exercise of discretion by any person pursuant to any such code or standard.
(3) Failure to comply with a statement of principle under this paragraph is a ground for the taking of disciplinary action or the exercise of powers of intervention, but it does not give rise to any right of
1186
action by investors or other persons affected or affect the validity of any transaction.
(4) The disciplinary action which may be taken by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) is —

(a) the making of a public statement under paragraph 21, or

(b) the application by the Registrar for an injunction, interdict or other order under paragraph 22(1), or

(c) any action under paragraph 26 or 27 of this Schedule;

and the reference in that sub-paragraph to powers of intervention is to the powers conferred by Chapter VI of Part I of this Act.
(5) Where a statement of principle relates to compliance with a code or standard issued by another person, the statement of principle may provide —

(a) that failure to comply with the code or standard shall be a ground for the taking of disciplinary action, or the exercise of powers of intervention, only in such cases and to such extent as may be specified; and

(b) that no such action shall be taken, or any such power exercised, except at the request of the person by whom the code or standard in question was issued.

(6) The Registrar shall exercise his powers in such manner as appears to him appropriate to secure compliance with statements of principle under this paragraph.
13B. —(1) The relevant regulatory authority may on the application of a regulated friendly society —

(a) modify a statement of principle issued under paragraph 13A so as to adapt it to the circumstances of the society or to any particular kind of business carried on by it, or

(b) dispense the society from compliance with any such statement of principle, generally or in relation to any particular kind of business carried on by it.

(2) The powers conferred by this paragraph shall not be exercised unless it appears to the relevant regulatory authority —

(a) that compliance with the statement of principle in question would be unduly burdensome for the applicant having regard to the benefit which compliance would confer on investors, and

(b) that the exercise of those powers will not result in any undue risk to investors.

(3) The powers conferred by this paragraph may be exercised unconditionally or subject to conditions; and paragraph 13A(3) applies in the case of failure to comply with a statement of principle.
(4) The relevant regulatory authority for the purposes of this paragraph is —

(a) in the case of a member society of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies, in relation to investment business in the carrying on of which it is subject to the rules of the organisation, that organisation;

(b) in any case, or in relation to other investment business, the Registrar.

(5) The reference in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 as applied by paragraph 4 above (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisation for friendly societies) to monitoring and enforcement of compliance with statements of principle includes monitoring and enforcement of compliance with conditions imposed by the organisation under this paragraph.".
33. —(1) Paragraph 14 (conduct of business rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), omit the words "other than a member society".
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert —
"(2A) Paragraph 22B below has effect as regards the application of rules under this paragraph to member societies in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.".
(4) In sub-paragraph (3), omit the word "and" after paragraph (a); and after paragraph (b) insert —
";and
(c) for the references in subsection (4) to section 63B and a recognised self-regulating organisation there shall be substituted references to paragraph 13B and a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies,".
34. —(1) Paragraph 19 (clients' money regulations) as amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2) for the words from "(but with the substitution" to the end substitute "(but with the substitution for the reference in paragraph (e) of subsection (2) to the Secretary of State of a reference to the Registrar)".
(3) After that sub-paragraph insert —
"(3) Paragraph 22B below has effect as regards the application of regulations under this paragraph to member societies in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.".
35. For paragraph 20 (unsolicited calls) substitute —
"20. —(1) Regulations under section 56(1) of this Act shall not permit anything to be done by a regulated friendly society but that section shall not apply to anything done by such a society in the course of or in consequence of an unsolicited call which, as respects the society, constitutes the carrying on of regulated business, if it is permitted to be done by the society by regulations made by the Registrar with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(2) Paragraph 22B below has effect as regards the application of regulations under this paragraph to member societies in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which they are subject to the rules of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.
(3) As it applies to such persons in respect of such business, the reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to conduct permitted by regulations made by the Registrar with the consent of the Secretary of State shall be construed—

(a) where or to the extent that the regulations do not apply, as a reference to conduct permitted by the rules of the organisation; and

(b) where or to the extent that the regulations do apply but are expressed to have effect subject to the rules of the organisation, as a reference to conduct permitted by the regulations together with the rules of the organisation.".

36. After paragraph 22 (and after the paragraph inserted by section 158(3)) insert—
"22B. —(1) The Registrar may in rules and regulations under —

(a) paragraph 14 (conduct of business rules),

(b) paragraph 19 (client's money regulations), or

(c) paragraph 20 (regulations as to unsolicited calls), designate provisions which apply, to such extent as may be specified, to a member society in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which it is subject to the rules of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.

(2) It may be provided that the designated rules or regulations have effect, generally or to such extent as may be specified, subject to the rules of the organisation.
(3) A member society which contravenes a rule or regulation applying to it by virtue of this paragraph shall be treated as having contravened the rules of the relevant recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.
(4) It may be provided that, to such extent as may be specified, the designated rules or regulations may not be modified or waived (under paragraph 22C below or section 50) in relation to a member society.
Where such provision is made any modification or waiver previously granted shall cease to have effect, subject to any transitional provision or saving contained in the rules or regulations.
(5) Except as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), the rules and regulations referred to in that sub-paragraph do not apply to a member society in respect of investment business in the carrying on of which it is subject to the rules of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.
22C. —(1) A recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies may on the application of a society which is a member of the organisation—

(a) modify a rule or regulation designated under paragraph 22B so as to adapt it to the circumstances of the society or to any particular kind of business carried on by it, or

(b) dispense the society from compliance with any such rule or regulation, generally or in relation to any particular kind of business carried on by it.

(2) The powers conferred by this paragraph shall not be exercised unless it appears to the organisation—

(a) that compliance with the rule or regulation in question would be unduly burdensome for the applicant having regard to the benefit which compliance would confer on investors, and

(b) that the exercise of those powers will not result in any undue risk to investors.

(3) The powers conferred by this paragraph may be exercised unconditionally or subject to conditions; and paragraph 22B(3) applies in the case of a contravention of a condition as in the case of contravention of a designated rule or regulation.
(4) The reference in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 as applied by paragraph 4 above (requirements for recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies) to monitoring and enforcement of compliance with rules and regulations includes monitoring and enforcement of compliance with conditions imposed by the organisation under this paragraph.
22D. —(1) The Registrar may issue codes of practice with respect to any matters dealt with by statements of principle issued under paragraph 13A or by rules or regulations made under any provision of this Schedule.
(2) In determining whether a society has failed to comply with a statement of principle —

(a) a failure by it to comply with any relevant provision of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish failure to comply with the statement of principle, and

(b) compliance by it with the relevant provisions of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative any such failure.

(3) A contravention of a code of practice with respect to a matter dealt with by rules or regulations shall not of itself give rise to any liability or invalidate any transaction; but in determining whether a society's conduct amounts to contravention of a rule or regulation—

(a) contravention by it of any relevant provision of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish liability, and

(b) compliance by it with the relevant provisions of a code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

(4) Where by virtue of paragraph 22B (application of designated rules and regulations to member societies) rules or regulations —

(a) do not apply, to any extent, to a member society of a recognised self-regulating organisation for friendly societies, or

(b) apply, to any extent, subject to the rules of the organisation,

a code of practice with respect to a matter dealt with by the rules or regulations may contain provision limiting its application to a corresponding extent.".
37. For paragraph 29 (transfer of functions of making rules or regulations) substitute—
"29. —(1) The Registrar shall not make a transfer order transferring any legislative functions to a transferee body unless—

(a) the body has furnished him and the Secretary of State with a copy of the instruments it proposes to issue or make in the exercise of those functions, and

(b) they are both satisfied that those instruments will—

(i) afford investors an adequate level of protection,

(ii) in the case of provisions corresponding to those mentioned in Schedule 8 to this Act, comply with the principles set out in that Schedule, and

(iii) take proper account of the supervision of friendly societies by the Registrar under the enactments relating to friendly societies.

(2) In this paragraph "legislative functions" means the functions of issuing or making statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice.".
38. In paragraph 30(2), for "rules or regulations made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice issued or made".
39. In paragraph 31(6)(c), for "as if the reference to section 205(2) were a reference to paragraph 45(1) below" substitute "as if the reference to section 205A were a reference to paragraph 45(1) and (3) below".
40. For paragraph 34 substitute—
"34.—(1) A transferee body to which the Registrar has transferred any legislative functions may exercise those functions without the consent of the Secretary of State.
(2) In this paragraph "legislative functions" means the functions of issuing or making statements of principle, rules regulations or codes of practice".
41. In paragraph 36 (competition scrutiny: transferee bodies) in sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(b) for "rules, regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations, codes of practice".
42. In paragraph 38(1) (publication of information and advice)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "rules and regulations made" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations and codes of practice issued or made", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "rules or regulations" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice".

43. In paragraph 45—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for "make regulations, rules or orders" substitute "issue or make statements of principle, rules, regulations, orders or codes of practice", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (3) for "regulations, rules or orders" substitute "statements of principle, rules, regulations, orders or codes of practice".'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 485 to 494.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I cannot help noticing that Amendment No. 494 consists of 17 pages. It purports to amend the Financial Services Act 1986 which has given such trouble to everyone who has had anything to do with it. I was drafted into my present interest in the Bill at this very late stage and I cannot pretend that I have absorbed all the detail of the amendment. As a matter of principle, it seems
1190
to me to be wrong that such complicated amendments as this to an Act that has given such trouble in its interpretation should be introduced into a Bill of this kind at such a late stage. I wonder what the explanation is.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to one that we discussed earlier at some length. In fact, this is purely a repeal schedule.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
495 Schedule 17, page 237, line 15, at end insert—

`1964 c. 40.

Harbours Act 1964.

In section 42(6), the words "required to be attached to a company's balance sheet".'.

496 Page 237, column 3, leave out line 25 and insert—

'In section 85, subsection (5) and, in subsection (6), paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it.

497 Page 237, line 31, column 3, leave out from 'section' to `the' in line 36 and insert '89(2)'.
498 Page 237, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.
499 Page 237, line 45, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.
500 Page 237, line 48, column 3, at end, insert—

`Section 160(3)'.

501 Page 238, column 3, leave out line 40.
502 Page 238, line 41, column 3, at end, insert—

`Section 440.'

503 Page 238, line 48, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 50 and insert—

`Sect ion 447(1)'.

504 Page 239, line 2, column 3, at end insert—

'(a) in subsection (2), paragraphs (a) and (d) and the word "or" preceding the latter;".'.

505 Page 239, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

In section 708(1)(b), the words "or other material".

Sections 172 and 715.

In section 716(2), the words following paragraph (c).

In section 717(1), the words following paragraph (c).'.

506 Page 239, column 3, leave out line 17 and insert—

In section 744, the definitions of "annual return", "authorised institution",

"authorised minimum", "expert", "floating charge", "joint stock company" and "undistributable reserves".

In section 746, the words "Except as provided by section 243(6),".

In Schedule 2— (a) in paragraph 1(1), the words "paragraph

60(2) of Schedule 4 or paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9";

(b) paragraph 1(5);

(c) in paragraph 2(1), the word "23,";

(d) paragraph 2(2);

(e) in paragraph 3(1), the words "paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4 or paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9";

(f) paragraph 3(3);

(g) in paragraph 4(1), the words "(whether as personal representative or otherwise)";'

(h) in paragraph 4(2), the words "paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4 or paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9".'.

507 Page 239, line 19, column 3, after '50(6),' insert '53(7),'.
508 Page 239, line 19, column 3, leave out '78, 80' and insert '77 to'.
509 Page 239, line 20, column 3, leave out 'and 92' and insert '90 to 92 and 95'.
510 Page 239, column 3, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

'In Schedule 9—

(a) paragraphs 1, 13(3) and (18), 16, 18(5) 19(3) to (7) and 21 to 26;

(b) in paragraph 27(4), the words "of the said Part I";

(c) in paragraph 28, in sub-paragraph (1) the words "to which Part II of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 applies" and in sub-paragraph (2) the words "of Part I of this Schedule":

(d) paragraphs 29 to 31.'.

511 Page 239, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 22—

(a) the entry relating to section 36(4);

(b) in the entry relating to sections 363 to 365, the words "(with Schedule 15)";

(c) in the entry relating to sections 384 to 393, in column 2, the word "qualifications".'.

512 Page 239, line 33, column 3, after 'sections' insert '245(1)'.
513 Page 239, line 34, column 3, after '260(3)', insert '287(3)'.
514 Page 239, line 35, column 3, leave out '392(3),' and insert '384(5), 386(2), 389(10), 390(7), 391(4), 392(2),'.
515 Page 239, line 35, column 3, leave out '393 and 703(1)' and insert 'and 393'.
516 Page 239, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
517 Page 239, line 39, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 7(3), 23 and'.
518 Page 239, line 45, column 3, after 'sections', insert '45(5)'.
519 Page 239, line 51, column 3, after 'sections' insert '45(5)'.
520 Page 239, line 52, column 3, at end, insert—

In Part I of Schedule 13, the entries relating to sections 222(4), 225 and 733(3),'.

521 Page 239, line 52, at end insert—

'1986 c. 46.

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

In section 21(2), the word "and section 431 (summary proceedings)".'.

522 Page 240, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert—

In section 13— (a) subsection (1); (b) subsections (4) to (6).

In section 48(1), the words "members of a recognized self-regulating organization or" and "organisation or".

In section 55—

(a) in subsection (2)(b) and (e), the words "a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation or" and "organisation or";

(b) in subsection (3), the words "organisation or".'.

523 Page 240, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 119(5), the words from "and the practices referred to in paragraph (c)" to the end'.

In sections 159(1) and 160(1), the words from the beginning to "section 161 below".'.

524 Page 240, line 21, column 3, at end insert—

In Schedule 11—

(a) paragraph 4(4)(b);

(b) paragraph 7;

(c) in paragraph 10(3), the words from "and the practices referred to in paragarph (c)" to the end;

(d) in paragraph 14(1), the words "other than a member society";

(e) in paragraph 14(3), the word "and" after paragraph (a).'.

In Schedule 16, paragraph 22.'.

525 Page 240, line 22, column 3, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—

'In the Table in section 84(1), the entry relating to persons appointed under section 94, 106 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986.'.

Section 90(1).

In Schedule 6—

(a) paragraph 18(1) to (6);

(b) in paragraph 18(7) the words "and (1A)";

(c) in paragraph 18(8) and (9);

(d) in paragraph 27(3) the words "and (6)".

526 Page 240, line 26, at end insert—

'1988 c. 1.

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

Section 565(6)(b).'.

527 Page 240, line 27, at end insert—

'1988 c. 48.

Copyright, Designs and In Schedule 7, paragraph 31.'. Patents Act 1988.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 495 to 527. This group of amendments makes changes to Schedule 17 of the Bill which lists the repeals made in the Bill to various amendments in consequence of its provisions. The amendments are either in consequence of changes discussed earlier or have been left over from earlier stages during the passage of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
528 In the Title, line 15, after first '1986', insert'; to enable provision to be made for the recording and transfer of title to securities without a written instrument; to amend'.
529 Line 15, leave out 'the Insolvency Act 1986,'.
530 Line 15, after second '1986,' insert 'the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985,'.
531 Line 15, after second '1986,' insert 'the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986,.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 528 to 531.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.28 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed and sent to the Commons.

Waste Materials: Re-use
5.29 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress being made with the reclamation and recycling of waste materials.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Question on the subject of recycling tonight because I believe it is of crucial importance in the whole area of environmental improvement to which so much thought and effort is now being devoted. I believe that the timing of the debate is appropriate because we expect that in the Queen's Speech there will be an indication of a Green Bill to be put before us before long. Therefore this debate provides us with an opportunity for making some suggestions about what the Bill might contain regarding the important subject of recycling.
I have a personal involvement in this matter. I am president of the UK Reclamation Council which is a body that aims to stimulate interest in the reclamation and recycling of waste materials. It has representation from appropriate trade associations, local authorities, and national bodies. It also works very closely with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Undoubtedly there has been much progress over the years in the area of recycling. That is particularly true at the production end. In most production systems care is taken to recycle waste materials as they arise in the process. I have been very used to it myself in the coalmining industry where we tried to recycle as much as we could. We did so to the point that some of our customers from time to time felt that we recycled too much.
This has also been particularly true of the metal industry. The amount of scrap used in the production of iron and steel is considerable. That is equally so
1194
in the production of non-ferrous metals. The glass and paper industries have also achieved notable levels of recycling. In the plastics industry, on the other hand, a start has only just been made. It is much more difficult in that industry because of the nature of plastics.
There is a great deal more to be done in two areas. First, compared with what happens on the Continent, our performance in recycling in the various sectors to which I have referred is, generally speaking, relatively low. Secondly, the proportion of recycling from domestic waste is relatively small. We have this in common with our continental friends. Certainly, in this country the proportion is smaller than in almost any other. No less than 90 per cent. of the 20 million tonnes of domestic waste produced every year goes into landfill. One problem with landfilling is that it will become more and more expensive. Secondly, it has environmental disadvantages, such as leaching and the escape of methane. Thirdly, the movement of vast quantities of waste over longer and longer distances is a nuisance. Other methods will undoubtedly have to be devised. More domestic waste has tended to be reclaimed on the Continent because landfilling has been more expensive. But sooner or later we shall be in that position ourselves.
A certain proportion of domestic refuse is incinerated. In more forward-looking councils such as Sheffield, Nottingham and Edmonton, the process of incineration is connnected with the use of waste heat. I am involved in a project in Sheffield where most of the city's refuse is incinerated. We have recently set up a district heating system whereby the heat which was previously wasted to atmosphere is now used to heat neighbouring blocks of flats, and that facility is being moved to the city centre. Relatively small quantities —not much more than 5 per cent. —of the domestic refuse generated in this country is recycled.
The Secretary of State for the Environment stated at the Conservative Party conference:
"We should aim to recycle half our household waste within the next 10 years".
That is a desirable objective, but it will require an enormous amount of effort. In no country at the moment is that proportion of domestic waste recycled. It would be a great plus for us if we could achieve anything like that. Before considering the actions required to achieve it, let us consider the priorities in the treatment of waste. In the first instance, it should obviously be minimised at the production end. The less waste that is generated to begin with, the better off we shall be. Secondly, if it has to be produced in the manufacturing process, it should be done in such a way that it is possible to recycle. In other words, there has to be a planning or designing for recyclability.
A number of forward-looking enterprises are taking this into account. Only the other day I was at a presentation on this subject. General Motors (Europe) indicated what it is doing regarding the parts that it puts into its cars. It is making sure that as much as possible of what goes into the manufacture and assembly of cars is recyclable. This is one of the most important areas that we can look

1195
to in industry. We should design for recyclability, but we should also have the ability to recycle the resultant products. In the paper industry, for example, there have often been drives to collect waste paper. But the waste could not be used because demand was exceeded. The demand and supply of waste materials must go together.
There have been many studies on designing for recyclability. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one study by Dr. Michael Henstock on behalf of the Institute of Metals. It examines this area in some detail and shows how much can be done in the industrial approach to designing for recyclability. What cannot be recovered for recycling should be efficiently and safely disposed of; but let us hope that as a result of all these efforts the proportion will reduce over the years.
Many initiatives to deal with the problem have been launched in recent years. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to the Department of Trade and Industry for its efforts in tackling the problem on a sectoral basis. It recently set up a recycling strategy group and kindly invited me to participate in its deliberations. It is reviewing the whole position and considering where further action should be taken. Quite rightly the DTI has proclaimed through its Ministers that waste recovery must be approached on a cradle to the grave basis. One must start at the beginning in order to make sure that as much of the resultant waste as possible is efficiently recycled and re-used.
There is no doubt that there is a growing awareness of this problem, from government downward. But we must also consider the steps that are needed to convert the recognition of the problem and the growing attention paid to it into practical reality. What is certain is that there can be no single simple way of dealing with it. There must be co-ordination of actions at government and industrial level. Voluntary organisations and local authorities have their part to play, as do individuals. We all have a role to play. I should like to suggest what specifically each of those bodies should do in order to convert the intention stated by the Secretary of State for the Environment into reality.
I start with government. The Government have taken many initiatives. They have convened conferences and carried out studies. However, a point that worries those who deal with the problem is that responsibility for recycling is divided between two departments—the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry. It would simplify matters if one department could take responsibility on board. The next thing the Government should do is to make sure that adequate advice and information is circulated. A good start has been made and I hope that it will be maintained.
We also need to remove obstacles. What are the obstacles in the way of the development of recycling? One is emerging from the Brussels directives. A definition of waste emerging in the directives from Brussels is likely to act as an impediment to the stimulation of recycling. Under the broader
1196
definition of waste which is proposed, those who collect scrap for recycling could well be denominated as handling waste and have to be specially licensed for the purpose. That would introduce new impediments. My council, the UKRC, has been in communication with the DTI on the subject. I am glad to say that we have received a positive response. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us a little more about how we can get this definition of waste modified in such a way so as not to inhibit the recycling process.
I move on from the removal of obstacles and turn to incentives. In my view it is the role of government in major issues of policy to provide incentives from time to time. A successful incentive which the Government recently introduced is one which directs motorists towards using unleaded petrol. I should like to suggest that they look very seriously at the recycling objective to see whether an appropriate fiscal measure, or series of fiscal measures, could be introduced to stimulate recycling.
My next point concerns technology. Here again, while much of the technology will no doubt evolve from industrial efforts, the Government have a role to play to stimulate developing technology in recycling. The contribution of the Warren Spring Laboratory in this whole area is considerable. It is now organised on an agency basis. I suggest that the Government consider intensifying the number of projects which they put to Warren Spring which could lead to the technological development of recycling.
I turn now to industry. I have already mentioned that I believe the first action industry should take is to minimise its waste and then design for recycling. I am glad to say that there is evidence of a growing awareness on the part of industry in this subject. Only the other day, on 6th November, 19 leading European industrial companies, including some from Britain, joined together in a recycling initiative. They are prepared to make quite substantial funds available to ensure that recycling, and reclamation of recyclable materials, is developed in various European countries. The chemical industry, likewise, has now also become very conscious of this fact.
Therefore there is not the slightest doubt that there is a growing awareness on the part of industry in the matter. However, what is necessary is to stimulate its interest in the subject to ensure that this design for recyclability is widened throughout the production sector and to make sure that there is the capacity to deal with the reclaimed materials. In this respect I instance the case of the paper industry. I am glad to note that there is new capacity now coming on stream which should be in operation by 1993 and which will enable a substantially greater amount of wastepaper to be reclaimed and utilised.
In the whole area voluntary organisations play a crucial role. The subject is one which appeals to people. The voluntary organisations which have played a noticeable part in this are Friends of the Earth and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I have read with great care the documents which they have produced. They are well researched and based upon careful statistical studies. The benefit of the voluntary organisations is that

1197
they reach out into the communities. They have stimulated a great deal of response. Therefore I think that they should be encouraged to continue with their efforts and to work closely with government initiatives.
Finally, I turn to local authorities and to such bodies as the London Waste Regulation Authority. If we are talking about domestic waste, it is here that the whole process starts: in the whole business of the segregation of waste and its collection. Successful efforts have been made in certain other countries. I should mention Ontario in particular where they have what is known as the blue box system. Householders are asked to put their reclaimable waste, which is clearly defined, into the blue box. They must be clean waste materials, such as tin cans, bottles, plastics, newsprint, and so on. There is a separate collection each week for such materials from the blue boxes. I am glad to say that this system will be tried out in Sheffield, which has set itself up as a recycling city of the future. The city is to try out many of these different methods. There have been other centres which have also tried out the scheme; for example, Richmond is one of them. If we are to break the back of this question of reclamation and recycling of domestic waste, it is essential that separation should start at the household. Any other system is extremely costly. However, in order to do that it must be generally spread on the most effective basis. Local authorities must respond accordingly and be resourced so that they will be able to do so.
In summary, I should like to emphasise what I have to say. I should first emphasise that I think there has undoubtedly been a growing interest throughout the country in the subject; that is, from the Government, from industry, from local authorities, from individuals and from voluntary bodies. The Secretary of State for the Environment has boldly identified an important objective. What we must now do is to ensure that practical methods are used to achieve that aim.
I shall emphasise again the three points I have made. First, I think that at government level they should seriously consider providing incentives for recycling. Secondly, at industrial level the crucial matter is that of design for recyclabilty; and, thirdly, at local level the separation of waste to enable the collection of recyclable materials is most important. If those three methods, among others, are adopted, we should be able to translate the intention stated by the Secretary of State into reality by the end of the century.
5.47 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate today. I should also like to apologise for having arrived a few minutes late. I was unaware that the consideration of Commons amendments on the Companies Bill would come to such an abrupt end. I was under the impression that it would continue until 10 o'clock this evening.
The problem of disposing of refuse, sewage sludges and commercial refuse in an environmentally acceptable manner is becoming a major headache in
1198
all developed and developing countries. Many local authorities are running out of sites in which to dump their domestic waste. With the world's burgeoning population growth rate —it is believed to be almost 5 billion at present —the question must be: how can we effectively handle the vast, increasing volume of waste products?
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, very eloquently outlined the various techniques for the recycling of waste products. I do not profess to have any expertise in this particular area; I am simply a concerned citizen looking at what I believe is an under-utilised industry in Britain. The concept of lining tips with non-pervious materials is admirable. However, it has not yet stood the test of time, nor does it seem very practical when one watches lorries without any proper supervision tipping waste products containing sharp metal objects on top of the lining material. I am sure that during his speech the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be raising the issue of the polluting of underground water canals.
The Minister of State said in his opening address in the pollution and the environment debate on 1st February that:
"we should start by trying to reduce the total quantity of waste".—[Official Report, 1/2/89; col. 1098.]
He went on to mention the fact that the Government should encourage the recycling of domestic waste products to the maximum extent consistent with sound economics. Surely it is not just the cost at stake; it is the protection of our environment for future generations.
Recent evidence to the environment committee of the other place estimated that there a re some 1,400 landfill sites in England and Wales which may be emitting enough gas to cause serious fires and explosions. We are aware of many methods of counteracting such accidents. Landfill gas is a national problem and needs monitoring. I should like to hear from the Minister what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to regulate the use of landfill sites.
It has been estimated that within 20 years most of the peat-producing areas in Britain will be worked out. It is feasible that recycled compost could take its place. Systems and processes are available to reclaim and recycle over 90 per cent. of domestic waste. Those systems also regulate the sludge residue from sewage treatment works which is currently dumped into the sea. The system incorporates all the standard waste recovery procedures with the important addition of electricity generation, which makes the plant self-sufficient in energy while it produces compost.
On the question of paper recycling, the Department of the Environment figures for 1985 show that 7·7 million tonnes of paper and board were consumed by manufacturers in the United Kingdom, of which 2 million tonnes were recycled —about 27 per cent. of the total. Although paper recycling is uneconomic, it is believed that it is possible that more paper could be recycled. The noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, in his maiden speech during a similar debate, made the point that the ever-increasing weight of the Sunday Times gives great scope for recycling that paper. Estimates of

1199
the number of trees needed to produce 7·7 million tonnes of paper and board vary from 80 million to 100 million.
The recycling of plastic is more problematic. It is not economic and some recycled plastic can give off noxious gases.
Two supermarket chains, Sainsbury's and Tesco's, have launched campaigns to provide more organic food; to have a range of biodegradable packaging; and to take part in large waste recycling projects. I hope that other retail stores will follow their good example.
In conclusion, a clearly defined waste management strategy with planned arrangements for landfill sites, recycling, incineration, re-use projects and compost systems is needed.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, waste recycling involves issues which run throughout the green debate and the whole environment. Effectively, it can be seen as a microcosm of the recycling problem. We are talking about the most effective use of our finite natural resources. We could make far better use of materials such as the timber which goes into newspapers, which we could re-use several times, and the metal used in canning. It has been estimated that 99 per cent. of aluminium can be recycled at only 5 per cent. of the energy cost. Such statistics make one realise how much we are throwing away and how much we could claw back.
As has been pointed out by the two previous speakers, our rubbish invariably ends up in large holes in the ground which are called landfill sites; and 90 per cent. of the sites produce methane gas which adds to the greenhouse effect and produces toxic seepages which, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, pointed out can make their way through ground water into our water supply. Many of the sites are too close to our rivers for comfort and so we may already have some toxic residue in the rivers.
The incineration of waste is not an option which should be considered lightly because when something is burnt it gives off gases. If something unpleasant is burnt it can easily give off damaging gases. Once again, incorrect incineration may contribute to acid rain and the greenhouse effect. It is believed that many of our incineration plants are of a lower standard than is desirable, and once EC regulations are introduced they will be illegal.
Landfill sites do not just have the dangers of direct pollution which I have already mentioned. They are not useful once they have been reclaimed. One can build houses on them if one does not mind them exploding now and again. If a house is built, one may find that the value goes down. Landfill sites are hardly ideal for recreational purposes. I spent six years playing for a rugby club on a pitch built on a reclaimed site in Norwich. It was the worst rugby pitch in the entire eastern counties. It was notorious for producing old pieces of argicultural machinery from the pitch at various points in the game. It was constantly surrounded by six inches of stagnant water which disguised six inches of stagnant mud.
1200
When Norfolk County Council built a bypass on top of the pitch everyone was heartily glad to leave it.
We must consider increased recycling so that we do not have a waste problem. I have already pointed out that aluminium is greatly under-utilised. It is usually only used once and then thrown away, although it could easily be reclaimed if a reclaiming system were set up. Scrap metal provides a precedent for reclaiming used substances. In 1982 it was estimated that 63 per cent. of the United Kingdom's iron and steel derived from scrap and only one-quarter of the energy was required to reclaim steel from ferrous ores.
Recycling can be pushed further. Glass represents 10 per cent. of this country's rubbish. Virtually all glass can be recycled. We waste vast quantities of it when we throw it away. It is estimated that in 1985 Britain reclaimed 210,000 tonnes of glass and Holland reclaimed 230,000 tonnes. Put another way, Holland met 53 per cent. of its demand for glass from glass which had already been used once. Britain managed 12 per cent., which is an appallingly low figure.
Domestic paper is a subject with which many of your Lordships are probably only too boringly familiar. We must all have collected waste paper at some time and given it in. The last time I visited my native Norwich I noticed signs at collection points which said that they were sorry but they could not take any more waste paper. Surely more encouragement should be given to increasing the number of points which take in waste paper and reprocess it. That is a subject which will probably be covered by every speaker, but it bears repeating.
I could continue listing the types of materials that can be reprocessed and whose full potential is not realised. A more englightening fact is that some local councils have not merely managed to reclaim and recycle huge quantities of otherwise waste material but have also made a profit. In Richmond, Surrey, the local council managed to generate through the reclamation of waste £167,000 which was redistributed into the community. In other words, it appears that when we do not recycle waste to its full potential we are throwing money away hand over fist. I suggest that if waste can generate such an income we should look very seriously at the process for simple economic reasons. Also, if the Government were seen to be investing a little time and possibly money in this field, there could be handsome dividends.
Finally, the Government must take this problem very seriously. I wish to see them start by educating the public and indeed industry, the whole nation, into thinking about recycled waste as a real economic opportunity and social duty. When the Prime Minister said that we had only a lifetime lease on the planet, she seemed to be comparing the whole planet with one large piece of property. I suggest that, if a person were to lease a piece of property to somebody and received it back in reasonably good nick except that one or two of its rooms were absolutely disgusting, that person would be rather annoyed.
6 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ezra on raising this very important Question at such a time. I am sure that all noble Lords in the House are entirely agreed that it is highly desirable to reclaim and recycle waste materials. However, the point at issue which is posed by the Unstarred Question is whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the progress which is being made on reclamation and recycling. I should have thought that it was obvious that they cannot be.
Looking at the statistics, I am told that the estimate of the domestic waste produced by each person in this country is between one-third and half a tonne annually. If we are to recycle and re-use that waste material, it seems to me essential that it should be separated quickly at source. Once it is mixed with all kinds of other waste materials, it is thereafter difficult to process. Therefore it seems to me essential to have a partnership between central government, local government, private industry and public industry, the voluntary organisations and so on. This would enable the process to be carried out in such a way that it enlists public participation. A great deal will depend on voluntary separation of the potential waste at source by the users. It needs to be properly processed by the local authority. There must be beneficial economic results for the industrialists who will do the recycling. The whole effort must be promoted and co-ordinated by the Government.
My noble friend Lord Ezra gave the glass industry a pat on the back for the way we use and recycle glass. I am not sure that we deserve it. A survey was conducted jointly by a London packaging consultancy, Michael Peters & Partners, and Diagnostic Market Research. I quote their figures from an article which appeared in the Guardian Newspaper on 20th July 1989:
"Only 16 per cent. of glass jars and bottles are recycled in Britain against a European average of 30 per cent. Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland all recycle nearly half their glass containers".
That shows the progress that we must make to draw level with European countries similar to ours.
I am happy to say that for over a year now in my own small town of Llanidloes in mid-Wales, a small market town with about 2,500 inhabitants, and in other small towns in our area we see large bottle bins. We separate the bottles and put green bottles into one bin, brown into another, clear bottles into another. The public have taken to this in a big way and an effort is certainly being made in my area as well as, I am sure, in many other areas of the country. But we still have a great deal of progress to make.
The Guardian article which quotes the figures in the survey states:
"Britain ranks well behind the rest of the world in recycling only 5 per cent. of aluminium cans. The European average is 13 per cent.",
so that is not very high. We compare those figures with the United States, where it is 55 per cent., Canada, 65 per cent. and Japan, 42 per cent. As my noble friend Lord Addington pointed out, there are
1202
obviously beneficial economic consequences of the recovery in particular of aluminium cans.
Waste paper has been referred to. I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, this question: what do we do with waste paper in this establishment, in the Royal Palace of Westminster? Do we recycle it properly? Do we recover it? What use do we make of the recovered paper? We use an enormous amount of paper here. We only have to look at the Benches around us to see the amount of paper that is left here every day. What happens to it? Are we setting an example to the rest of the country?
On waste paper, it is known that Canada and the United States have so enlisted public support for the recovery of waste paper, without ensuring that the waste paper is properly processed, that I understand that they now sell subsidised waste paper to Europe. One of the reasons why the price of waste paper to voluntary organisations in this country has dropped is that it is cheaper for the processors to import it from abroad at present. That illustrates some of the problems involved.
However, it seems to me that the Government must take an initiative. A great deal has been said lately by government ministers about the desirability of improving the environment and of recycling all kinds of waste. But somebody must co-ordinate the effort that is needed. My attention was drawn recently —and I should have known of this before—to an organisation called C.SAWS. It stands for the Community Support Anti-Waste Scheme, which was started in Cardiff about 13 years ago in a deprived area. One hundred local businesses were involved, the local authority was involved and there was an urban aid grant from central government. Recycling took place with eventually a full-time staff of 47. There was a great deal of voluntary collection, and the activity was particularly directed at paper recovery. That shows what can be done in one town. There was the example of Richmond given by my noble friend and I am told that Leeds is now an important centre for this kind of innovative work.
However, it should take place throughout the country. There should be much more education to make young and old appreciate the importance of recycling. It is a matter which has excited the attention of the public generally only in recent years. Previously the great British public by and large were unaffected by the prospect of recycling and indeed the need to recycle.
However I am sure that my noble friend is right to ask the Government at this stage whether they are satisfied with the progress that has been made. If they are not satisfied, as I suspect must be the case, what steps do they intend to take to improve progress in this very important sphere?
6.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the thanks which have been given to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this very important subject, and indeed achieving prime time for it. The noble Lord succeeded so well in achieving prime time that I must apologise to him for being three

1203
minutes late arriving for the debate, and therefore missing the early part of his speech. The noble Lord is clearly extremely expert on this subject. I must confess from the outset that not only am I less expert, but I am also probably less expert than almost any other Member of your Lordships' House.
In the 1950s I lived for a year in the Middle West of the United States. Despite outrage from my landlord, I could never grasp the distinction between trash and garbage. That was despite having been brought up in London during the war when my most unfavourite task was to take the pig swill out to the pig bin on the corner of the road. I was extremely pleased when the pig bins were abolished after the war had ended and I no longer had to perform that unpleasant task. However, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, deplores my selfish attitude towards reclamation and recycling.
When I entered local government, I was associated for many years with the London borough of Tottenham, which had its own pig farm. That pig farm was maintained successfully for many years after the war and was only given up in the 1960s because the land was more valuable for development purposes than it was as a pig farm. The successor borough of Haringey, where I still live, had for a number of years the habit of having a trailer at the back of the rubbish collection carts which was used for waste paper. I believe that it is 15 years since that was abolished, but I still religiously put my paper separately from other waste. I usually carry it out in a wine box and put it separately as if it were going to be reclaimed.
I thought for many years that it was the fault of the trade unions that that recycling no longer occurred. However, when I inquired about it recently, I found the confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, which is that it simply is not worth the effort, and that the extra payment that would have to be made is not justified by the price that could be obtained for the waste paper. Therefore, even if our waste paper is offered separately, it is collected together with other materials.
It seems to me that in many ways we are moving backwards rather than forwards. If we are asking the Government whether they are satisfied with progress, we should look back to war time when the level of reclamation and recycling was very much higher in this country than it is today. At that time there was a collective public spirit regarding the separation of waste materials which led to a public attitude which encouraged recycling, whereas all public attitudes now go in the direction of greater waste, less recycling and more damage to the environment rather than less.
I suggest to the House and to the Government that recycling is paradoxically not the first target that we should strive for. I should have thought that there were three levels of dealing with these problems, of which recycling is really only the third. The first should be to cut down on the production of waste; that is, dealing with the matter at source. There should be some kind of disincentive for the vast
1204
amounts of packaging materials which are lavished on so many products nowadays. I am not talking only of food products but also of electrical goods, white goods, hardware and almost everything that we buy which used to come almost without packaging or with the minimum of packaging but is now wrapped, gift wrapped and treble wrapped in far too much material. That material is a positive embarrassment to get rid of and there is usually far more of it than is necessary. Instead of having prizes for packaging as the French have, perhaps we should have prizes for lack of packaging. That would deal with some of the problems that we have at the present time.
A further level of dealing with the problem of waste which is still preferable to recycling, although not as good as not using so much material in the first place, is the re-use of materials. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to bottle banks in his home town. In my part of London we are religious users of bottle banks. However, that is nothing like as efficient as what happens in the United States, for example, where there is a prize for the recovery of bottles and of aluminium cans; or in France where wine bottles are returned and the consigne system is used. That system does not exist and has never been made to exist in this country. I would look to the re-use of materials such as bottles and cans rather than remaking glass from broken bottles in bottle banks as a more efficient system than the one we have at the present time.
Having gone through those steps, then perhaps it is more appropriate to think about recycling. Noble Lords have made a number of suggestions which I hope will receive the serious attention of the Government. It is certainly true that whichever aspect of recycling or reclamation we look at, there are examples of better practice in other countries than here. Examples have been given of reclamation of glass in the United States and Canada, and examples of the re-use of materials in Holland. My noble friend Lord Underhill reminds me that there is hardly a public place with a public lavatory in Holland which does not have recycled paper as opposed to the non-recycled paper and bleached paper that we have on our toilet rolls. The bleach causes additional damage to the environment.
We have a long way to go on almost every aspect of reclamation and recycling. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the removal of obstacles. I was interested to hear what he said about the European Community definition of waste. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response to that. The noble Lord then referred to incentives for better reclamation and recycling. He quite rightly referred to the admirable move to cut the tax on unleaded petrol. However, incentives can be of two kinds. They can be carrots, as the lower tax on unleaded petrol is, or they can be sticks. I suggest that this is an area where there is a real role for regulation and control as well as for encouragement and incentives. The example I gave of excessive packaging is one where we might well consider the role of regulation.
I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about the necessity for design for recyclability. That is a horrid word and I wish we could do without it, but I think the point the noble

1205
Lord made is valid. The point that he made about the need for partnership between government, local authorities and industry is also valid. But above all it is up to us as individuals to see to it that we co-operate and it is up to government to encourage us to do so. I look forward very much to the response of government to this most important issue.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for raising this important subject. Reclamation and recycling of waste materials has been of real importance for many years, but latterly has taken on an even greater significance. The noble Lord's longstanding involvement in these matters is well recognised, and I pay tribute to the contribution which he and other members of the UK Reclamation Council have made.
The Government have long accepted the crucial importance of recycling, and took a number of early initiatives in response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee's 1984 report entitled The Wealth of Waste. These included: the allocation of co-ordinating responsibility for recycling matters to a Minister within the Department of Trade and Industry, now my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for industry and consumer affairs, Mr. Forth, and the setting-up of supporting interdepartmental committees of Ministers and of officials; the establishment of a recycling advisory unit at Warren Spring laboratory, where the technology for recycling materials and recovering fuel from waste is researched and developed; the development of an awareness campaign, including the preparation of a video and the distribution of an education pack that went to every secondary school in the country; and a sectoral examination of the best ways to encourage recycling and put in place systems for its growth.
That programme of measures was, in the Government's view, successful. It helped to increase awareness of the benefits of recycling, and in particular encouraged the co-operation between different groups which is so vital to recycling success. I give as an example the targets set at the 1986 glass commitment conference; these aimed to double the number of bottle banks to 5,000 by 1991 and achieve a ratio of one to every 10,000 head of population. Good progress is being made towards achieving those targets—more than 3,800 bottle banks are now in place, and we are up to one bank for every 16,000 people. The involvement of industry, of local authorities and of the individual in that activity is typical of the co-ordinated approach we need to encourage.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that when I recently visited K89 —an international plastics exhibition in Dusseldorf —I met with representatives of the British plastics industry. They assured me that recycling is at the very top of the industry's environmental agenda. That is why, for example, it is such an active participant in collaborative initiatives such as the recycling city experiment in Sheffield to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred.
1206
The United Kingdom has a recycling record for many materials and products which is second to none, and of which we can rightly be proud. Last year, for example, it is estimated that the UK reclamation industry recovered almost 27 million tonnes of re-usable material from the waste stream, with a value of some £2 billion. All those involved are to be congratulated. Their contribution to raw material and energy savings, to the balance of payments and to environmental improvement was considerable. But the Government recognise, as many have said tonight, that much more needs to be done, especially in the area of collection and recycling of household waste, where our record is not as good as that claimed by some of our European neighbours. There are several reasons.
One is that the United Kingdom is one of the few European countries having widely available and relatively low-cost landfill sites. Some European countries turned to recycling earlier than we did because they were faced with very expensive disposal options such as incineration. Recycling was economically attractive as well as being environmentally beneficial. Another reason is that "green consumerism" has been slower to develop here than in some other countries. Only in the past year or so has there been much consumer demand for less environmentally-damaging products —recycled paper for writing is an example. Without a secure demand, companies have been reluctant to invest in the equipment to process recycled materials into end products.
Much is now changing. There will now be a strong natural push towards greater recycling because landfill costs will continue to rise sharply and because individuals are increasingly willing to express their environmental concern through the pattern of their spending. But the Government have also stated their commitment strongly to encouraging the further development of recycling as a central plank of a more comprehensive approach to environmental issues.
In May of this year my noble friend the then Secretary of State launched an innovative and co-ordinated DTI environmental programme. Among other measures, the programme included the establishment of a DTI environmental inquiry point at Warren Spring laboratory so that business and local authorities with questions on environmental issues—including recycling—can telephone free of charge for advice and guidance. The department's Enterprise Initiative was also extended to provide financial support to companies which need to bring in outside consultants to help them come to grips with environmental challenges and opportunities.
A further initiative was the establishment of a new business and the environment unit within the DTI. Officials from that unit are participating in numerous conferences, workshops, seminars and exhibitions to get the environmental message—and in particular the recycling message—across to business and to assess more clearly the different routes to effective recycling. They are focusing on products which offer particular challenges for recycling, such as CFCs in refrigerators, recycled paper, batteries, plastics, and tyres, and on issues

1207
such as designing products to improve their recyclability. They are also collaborating in the preparation of new education packs aimed at primary and secondary school children and designed for incorporation into the new national curriculum. The unit is also negotiating in Brussels on several EC directives which have recycling implications.
In recent weeks the DTI has brought together an advisory group to help develop a co-ordinated national approach to recycling and to consider ways of boosting recycling from household waste. That group, drawn from business, government, local authorities and voluntary organisations, has begun by concentrating upon why more of such valuable materials as glass, paper, cans and plastics are not being economically recycled now. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently stated that the United Kingdom should set itself the goal of recycling 50 per cent. of the recyclables —with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh —in household waste by the year 2000. The advisory group will be considering ways of achieving such an ambitious target. Success would make us the international leader in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is a member of that advisory group and I feel sure that his very great experience of these matters will be invaluable to the group's deliberations. Ministers will certainly place great weight upon his remarks this evening in opening the debate.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a very ambitious programme of government activity, and that the focus upon reclamation and recycling is appropriate. I am convinced that the climate has never been better for real progress to be made in improving the United Kingdom's performance. There is an encouraging willingness being shown by large numbers of the public to contribute in some way to protecting and preserving the environment, and the extraction and collection of valuable material from the domestic waste stream is one direct means of demonstrating that concern. It is up the Government, industry and all concerned at local and regional level to help facilitate the process.
We have heard this evening of a variety of proposals for achieving higher recycling rates. They will all be taken into account by Ministers when deciding upon the way forward. However, I should sound a cautionary note. Recycling is not an end in itself. It is only one means of conserving resources and achieving environmental improvement. That is especially relevant when addressing the kind of mandatory measures that some are pressing to see introduced. Several other countries have indeed legislated for materials to be collected; others have suggested mandatory deposits on various recyclable products. The result has been that they now have mountains of paper, plastics, metals and other materials that nobody wishes to buy. Recycling is about more than just collecting recyclable products and materials —they have to be separated, graded and processed to remove contaminants and the recycled materials used to manufacture new products
1208
for which there is a customer prepared to pay a realistic price.
The introduction of short-term or blanket measures or incentives into this chain of activity could disrupt the fine balance between supply and demand of virgin and recycled materials which is sustained by market forces. Any interference in this balanced mechanism —either centrally or via local authorities —should, in the Government's view, only be contemplated if a significant market failure needs to be corrected in the wider interest or perhaps to secure a specific objective. That said, however, there should now be greater recognition of the savings available to local authorities by the removal through recycling programmes of quantities of materials from the waste stream. I hope that forthcoming legislation will address that issue.
Perhaps I may turn now to some of the points that have been made during the course of the debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that DoE and DTI responsibilities should be brought together. I can assure the noble Lord that close rapport between the two departments already exists. However, it is logical that DoE with its regulatory and local authority responsibilities —which include waste disposal —should have a role distinct from that of the DTI with its market responsibilities and close involvement with the business community.
The noble Lord also asked about waste treatment priorities. I agree with the noble Lord that waste treatment priorities, particularly minimising waste, are critical. The DTI is co-sponsoring with the CBI a conference on the issue next Wednesday.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, asked about paper recycling and that subject was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. More than half the paper manufactured in this country last year was made from reclaimed waste paper. Only two countries in the world achieved a better performance, so perhaps the problem is not quite as black as noble Lords have suggested.
The noble Lords, Lord St. John and Lord Addington, referred to problems with landfilling. I was sorry to hear about the noble Lord's problems with his rugby pitch. The government view is that when properly managed and operated landfill is an effective method of waste disposal. It can be beneficial and an increasing volume of landfill gas is being tapped and used for heating in industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked me about the quantities of paper collected in the Palace of Westminster. I understand that all the salvageable waste paper collected from the Palace of Westminster goes for recycling. I was somewhat surprised to learn that the amounts involved average no fewer than 2 tonnes a day and on a high day —which may well be today —are as high as 4 tonnes a day.
Reference was made too to the current glut of collected newspaper and its relation to imports of waste paper from North America. We are concerned at the present glut. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was right to point out that some charities are not able to collect waste paper nowadays because of the low price that it commands. However, the

1209
Government believe that that glut is restricted to newspapers and magazines and is a continuation of the traditional cycles in that sector. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that imports of subsidised waste paper are having a significant effect in that area. I am told that there are already signs of an improvement in the situation. In the longer term, expansion of the United Kingdom paper-making capacity should absorb all the waste paper collected by voluntary groups. I am told that demand for most other grades of waste paper remains strong.
As I said, the Government are anxious to encourage recycling on every front. I note too the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the difficult definition of waste issue. I understand that officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Department of the Environment are shortly due to meet representatives of the reclamation industry to discuss further this vexed question. I agree that it would be most unfortunate if licensing procedures were to have an adverse effect on reclamation and recycling in the United Kingdom and we shall certainly seek to ensure that that does not happen.
This has been a timely and interesting debate, giving noble Lords the opportunity to express views on this important matter. The Government are working towards a coherent approach to recycling which will sustain long-term improvements over the levels currently being reached. The issues are complex and we do not seek quick-fix solutions which will ultimately do more harm than good. However, we must not forget that it is business, not government, which will create the wealth to pay for a better environment and that the drive and
1210
innovation of business will be needed to achieve the higher recycling rates which we all wish to see, as will the efforts of individuals and voluntary groups.
The government programme which I have described this evening is designed to complement the work of others engaged in recycling. We all share the same objective —to achieve much higher levels of recycling from industrial and household waste. I am confident that significant progress will be made during the coming years.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Prisons (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

International Westminster Bank Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before seven o'clock.

  LEGAL AID: ELIGIBILITY
  LEGAL AID: ELIGIBILITY
  PUBLIC HOUSE LANDLORDS: SECURITY OF TENURE
  PUBLIC HOUSE LANDLORDS: SECURITY OF TENURE
  NHS: GP'S DRUG BUDGETS
  NHS: GP'S DRUG BUDGETS
  VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS ACT 1979
  VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS ACT 1979